1921-03-10

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER'S REPORTS

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved:: That the reports made by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Honourable the Speaker, under section 74 of the Dominion Elections Act be printed and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto and that the same be referred to the Select Standing- Committee on Privileges and Elections to consider and report thereon to this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire, with
the consent of the House if necessary, to move the following resolution:
That a Special Committee he appointed to consider questions relating to the pensions.

insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee ; with power to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day its proceedings and the evidence taken, for the use of the committee, and to report from time to time; and that Rule 11 be suspended in relation thereto.
The House will remember that for at least two sessions a Special Committee has been appointed to deal with these matters, and, indeed, the administrative policy followed by this country, in relation to soldiers' re-establishment has been largely developed by these special committees. The returned men have on more than one occasion requested that a similar course be pursued this session. It may be the opinion of some hon. members that this subject has been already very thoroughly considered by Parliament, and that little, if anything, could be expected from another committee this session. Still, I believe it is the disposition of every hon. member, as I know it is the disposition of the Government, that the utmost pains be taken to see that nothing is left undone within the power of the country to take care of the just demands of those who did so much for us and for the world in the late war, and that to that end we should review all the administrative activities now under way looking to re-establishment, in order to ascertain the defects, if any exist-and there must be some-and to make recommendations as to what can be undertaken to improve upon our present methods; and generally to again go over the work done in previous sessions, so that we may all be sure that to the utmost of our power we are doing everything that can be done in the way of re-establishment.
I therefore have pleasure in moving this resolution which is virtually in the terms of similar motions adopted in previous sessions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the Special Committee appointed in conformity with the resolution agreed to by the House this day to consider questions relating to the pensions, insurance and re-establishment of returned soldiers, and any amendments to the existing laws in relation thereto which may be proposed or considered necessary by the committee, consist of the following members: Messrs. Arthurs, Be-land, Brien, Caldwell, Chisholm, Cooper,

Copp, Cronyn, Douglas (Strathcona), Edwards, Green, McGregor, McNutt, Morphy, Nesbitt, Peck, Power, Redman, Ross, Savard, Spinney, Turgeon, White (Victoria), Wilson (Saskatoon).


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the absence of notice this motion requires consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) :: Mr. Speaker, as my name is mentioned as a member of this committee, I should like to make an inquiry with reference to it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has stated that requests have come to the Government from returned soldiers for the appointment of this committee. Have any particular requests been made by returned soldiers' organizations for the granting of bonuses or other privileges or rewards of a special character? As the Prime Minister has intimated, this subject was very thoroughly gone into in the three previous sessions, particularly in the last session, and a good deal of time-very properly so -has been given to the matter. Is it the intention of the Government that the work done last session shall be gone over during this session? Of course, it will depend in some degree on the committee itself. I should like to ask further whether the request for the appointment of the committee has been made by organizations of returned men, or only by private individuals.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad that the
hon. member (Mr. Beland) had brought up the several subjects dealt with in his remarks. I am not certain at the moment just what written requests the Government has for the appointment of this committee. In my travels through the country, though, it was the exception rather than otherwise that I should not be met at different cities, and met always by organized bodies of returned men, and the request proffered that this committee be re-appointed. I could name cities in which I recall being met by organized returned men representing not only the Great War Veterans' Association, but other organizations as well. I am quite free to state to the House that the Great War Veterans' Association, Federal Command, are very anxious for the re-appointment of this committee. They are, of course, one of the most numerous of all the soldier organizations.
I understand the hon. member also to ask what form of assistance Was generally

requested, and in that connection, what is expected to be done in relation to the bonus request. Well, many suggestions have been made, many requests have been urged, for all manner of things-improvements on present machinery, new schemes of assistance, such as loans for housing, and the like; I really would not be able to recite the number and variety of requests made. Certainly we have been asked to reconsider the Government's attitude in relation to a general bonus to returned men. I have invariably stated in answer to those requests that as respects that form of assistance, a general cash bonus to returned men, the Government had stated its policy adverse to the suggestion, and that that policy had not been changed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

*Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Have any of the Government departments, hoards or commissions, had overdrafts at the hanks or eslewhere, since the end of the last fiscal year?
2.	If so, what are the names of such departments, hoards or commissions, and to what amount were their accounts overdrawn in each
Ca!e How do matters stand now with respect to such overdrafts?
4.	Has any such department, board or commission, used funds belonging to the British or other Government since the end of the last fiscal year?
5.	If so, how do the accounts now stand with respect to the funds so used?


Hon.   S@: 
EXCHANGE IN CUSTOMS TRANSACTIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is the Government aware that the Customs collectors are still estimating the American dollar at par, in reference to goods imported from the United States?
2>. Is it the intention of the Government to instruct Customs collectors so that they appraise such goods at the current rate of exchange as has been done in the case of European currency?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Section 59 of the Customs Act provides that in computing the value for duty of the currency of country of export, the rate thereof shall be such as has been ordered and proclaimed from time to'time by the Governor in Council, and the rate so ordered shall be based upon the actual value of the standard coins or currency of such country as compared with the standard dollar of Canada, in so far as such comparative values are known. There is no difference in value between the standard dollar of Canada and the standard dollar of the United States.



STEEL CONTRACT

Mr. RINFRET:: 
Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	The Government has rescinded the contract with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company for the supply of steel plates.
2 and 3. The contract provided for the construction by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company of a modern 110 inch plate mill at Sydney and for the purchase by the Government from the company of a minimum quantity of 50,000 tons of plates per annum for five years.

4. The demand for plates, as the result of the decline in shipbuilding all over the world, practically ceased during the latter part of 1920. Consequent upon these conditions there was a. marked decline in the price of plates more especially in the United States and Belgium. Had the contract been continued the Government would be obliged to market as much as possible of the quantity of plates it had agreed to purchase, in competition with those offering by Belgium and the United States, which course would doubtless entail a substantial loss to the Government. In these circumstances, the Government concluded that the public interests would be more fully protected by renouncing the contract.



S.'S. CANADIAN SAPPER

Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	Did the steamship Canadian Sapper arrive in Halifax from St. John's, Newfoundland, on or about January 22, 1921?
2.	What is her deadweight tonnage?
3.	How many tons of cargo did she carry on the trip in question from St. John's to Halifax?
4.	How many tons of coal per day does this ship consume?
5.	What rate of wages was paid to the able bodied seamen on this ship during the said voyage?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Customs at Halifax reports the arrival of the Canadian Sapper at that port on or about January 22nd, 1921.
2.	Approximately 2,800 tons.
3.	The board of management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine has made no report respecting the cargo carried.
4.	About 18 tons per day.
5.	No information in the Department, the matter being one entirely under the direction of the Board of Management.



BAIE STE. CATHERINE-TADOUSSAC SERVICE

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Has the Government through the Department of Marine and Fisheries and Post Office, received any petitions or demands for a steamer service between Baie Ste. Catherine and Ta-doussac, in the County of Saguenay, under the control of the Government.
2.	Has the Government considered the necessity and advisability of such a service being granted?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant the request contained in the said petitions?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.

3.	Upon consideration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries it was decided that as this was a ferry service it should be supported by the Provincial Government.



TORONTO POST OFFICE

Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Were a number of single women appointed to the permanent staff in the Toronto Post Office when fifty-five returned soldiers with the necessary qualifications were overlooked? If so, why?


Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: Ten single women, one of whom has since resigned, were selected for permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission. They had all passed the necessary Civil Service Examination to qualify for permanent appointment, and were the senior qualified temporary clerks. Fifty-five temporary clerks were taken on for the annual leave. Five of them were stenographers, and were afterwards kept on to fill permanent vacancies on the staff. Eleven of the remaining fifty were kept on temporarily to replace permanent employees absent on account of illness, and thirty-nine were let out, their services not being required. None of the thirty-nine let out had passed the necessary Civil Service Examination to qualify for permanent appointment. No returned soldiers who possess the necessary qualifications have been overlooked.



RETIREMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS

*Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is it the intention of the Government to delay for another year the carrying out of the Bill passed last session, entitled "An Act to provide for the retirement of certain members of the Public Service"?


Arthur Meighen: The subject is under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course.


*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is 'it the intention of the Government to bring forward this session a Bill for the retirement and pensioning off of civil servants?
2.	If so, when will it be presented?


Rt. Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No decision to that end has been reached.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



OIL AND GAS PERMITS AND LEASES

Mr. GRIESBACH:: 1.	With respect to Section (56) of the regulations for the issue of oil and gas permits and leases in the Northwest Territories of Canada, are the citizens of any other country debarred from acquiring a permit or lease under the said regulations?

2.	If so, what nationals are so debarred and why?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Citizens of any country, the laws, customs and regulations of which deny similar or like privileges to citizens or corporations of the British Empire are debarred from acquiring a permit or a lease under the said regulations.
2.	A list of the nationals so debarred has not yet been prepared.



MR. A. H. BLACK

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is A. H. Black an employee of the Separation and Assigned Pay Branch of the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	If so, has he had any military service in C.E.F.?
3.	Is he being appointed to the permanent staff?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Black voluntarily enlisted in the C.E.F., but was discharged as medically unfit.
3.	He has been recommended for permanent appointment.



MR. H. S. DOUGLAS

Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Was H. S. Douglas an employee of the Separation and Assigned Pay Branch?
2.	Is this Mr. H. S. Douglas now in the employ of this branch of the service?
3.	If not, for what reason did Mr. Douglas leave the service?
4.	Who is tilling the position formerly held by Mr. Douglas?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	On account of discovery of certain irregularities.
4.	Staff-Quartermaster-Sergeant H. Whitfield, Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps (a returned soldier).
Mr. A. H. ANDERSON.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is A. H. Anderson an employee of the Separation and Assigned Pay Branch of the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	If not, when did he resign or leave the service?
3'. Has any one been appointed to take his place? If so, who?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Not applicable.	,
3.	Not applicable.
Mr. G. B. BRACKENBURT


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is G. B. Brackenbury an employee of the Separation and Assigned Pay Branch of the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	If so, on what date was he appointed?
3.	Has he been recommended to be appointed to the permanent list?
4>. Prior to joining the service what was his occupation?
5.	Has he had any military experience?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	22nd April, 1915.
3.	Yes.
4.	Machinery agent.
5.	No.



CENSUS ENUMERATORS

Mr. KAY:: 1.	In connection with the coming census of Canada, who is to appoint the census enumerators?
2.	If all enumerators have been appointed, who appointed them?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Census Commissioners subject to approval by the Dominion Statistician.
2.	No enumerators have been appointed.



BELGIAN PURCHASES IN CANADA

Mr. PACAUD:: 1.	Were there any stipulations or conditions attached to the agreement extending a credit of $25,000,000 to the Government of Belgium which would tend to restrict the purchases to manufactured goods?
2.	Of the foodstuffs purchased by Belgium in Canada, by means of this credit, amounting to the sum of $277,774, what portion of the said sum comprised manufactured articles of food?
3.	Was there anything in the said agreement which would have prevented the Government of Belgium, if it so desired, to purchase in Canada by means of this credit, our Canadian hard wheat?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. The agreement of March 21, 1919, provided, as follows:
"The said credit shall be by the said Government of the Kingdom of Belgium utilized exclusively for the payment of the purchase price, free on board at Canadian ports, of goods produced in Canada, of kinds and descriptions approved by the said Government of the Dominion of Canada, and shall be, as nearly as possible, distributed in the following proportion:-
1/5 (one fifth) for foodstuffs,
1/5 (one fifth) for raw materials; and
3/5 (three fifths) for manufactured articles."

2.	The foodstuffs purchased comprised the following: Bacon, $186,016.57; Cheese, $77,620.90; Butter, $3,528.00; Macaroni, $1,144.00; Salmon, $9,435.00; total, $277,744.47.
3.	No.



DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS WAR SUPPLIES

Mr. EULER:: 1.	Is it true that the IMilitia Department at Ottawa' sold war supplies to junk dealers at such prices as $1 per pair for leather boots; 10 cents per shirt for flannel fatigue shirts; 35 cents per garment for woollen underwear; 90 cents a pair for woollen trousers; $1 per mattress for Ostermoor mattresses?
2.	Has the Government investigated the charges ?
3.	If so, were they true?
4.	If they have not been investigated, does the Government intend to do so?


Hugh Guthrie: All sales made by the Militia Department have been made by authority of, and through the Purchasing Commission of Canada. No new articles have been sold at prices quoted. Much higher prices were obtained in the case of new articles surplus to requirements, which prices have been set by the Purchasing Commission of Canada. Part-worn articles have been sold also at prices fixed by the Purchasing Commission of Canada as hereunder, in accordance with percentage serviceability:
Boots, ankle, part-worn, $1.40, $1.50 and $1.75.
Shirts, flannel, 60c.
Shirts, service, 35c and 85c.
Shirts, winter, 35c and 40c.
Shirts, woollen, 35c and 40c.
Drawers, woollen, 35c and 40c.
Trousers, hospital, woollen, $1.
Mattresses, hospital, $2.50 and $4.
In addition to the above, "lots" of condemned stores (junk) have also been sold by authority of the Purchasing Commission of Canada at prices varying from 35 cents to 45 cents a pound. These last mentioned items were stores absolutely "unserviceable" and properly condemned by Boards of Survey in accordance with prevailing regulations.



PECUNIARY CLAIMS CONVENTION

Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Does the Board of Arbitration, established pursuant to a convention called "Pecuniary Claims Convention" to give award upon the claims of money existing between the British Empire and the United States, among which are included the claims of Canadian hay dealers for overpaid rates of duty, still exist?
2.	If so, does the Government know when
the re-opening of the sittings of said board, which have been suspended since 1914, will take place?	,

3.	Does the Government intend to take steps toward the resumption of the hearings of said board in a near future?


Rt. Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A sitting for the delivery of awards was held at Paris on the 18th December, 1919, and the question of further sessions to deal with claims not yet disposed of is now under consideration by the Governments concerned.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
know if the attention of the Prime Minister has been drawn to a despatch appearing in a number of eastern papers and particularly in yesterday morning's papers of this city. The despatch reads:
Victoria, March 8.-Attorney-General J. W. DeB. Farris, during the discussion in the Legislature to-day on Premier Oliver's motion asking the Legislature to approve an address to Ottawa requesting an amendment to the Canadian Temperance Act, to prohibit importations of liquor into British Columbia, criticized the Doherty measure as a worthless one which prohibition provinces had refused to take advantage of because it was wholly unworkable.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. gentleman would perhaps be in order if he would submit a question, but not in reading an article which, as far as I can understand, is not essential to the question at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just going to
submit my question. The question I wished to ask was if, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, the statement made in the press despatch as coming from the Attorney General of British Columbia is correct, namely, that the so-called Doherty Act is a worthless measure and in the second place-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The second
question I trust will be more directly in point than the first one which serves to reflect on an Act of Parliament, and therefore is not a proper question to submit, either on the Orders of the Day or on giving notice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I desire to ask another question. Is it true that several provinces of Canada, having prohibitory laws, have refused to take advantage of this Act? Another question I should like to ask is-will the Prime Minister please state if, in the opinion of the Government, the present Canada Temperance Act,

known as the Doherty Act, will prevent importation of liquor into provinces to the full extent of the prohibitory laws of such provinces?


Arthur Meighen: In answer to the first question, whether the statement of the Attorney General has been brought to my attention, I can say that it was not until brought in the form of the question of to-day. In answer to the second question, whether the Act known as the Doherty Act is worthless, or invalid, I have no hesitation in saying "No". As to whether provinces have refused to avail themselves of its provisions, having adopted prohibitory measures, I would say that no province has done so, because it is a Dominion Act and goes into effect by virtue of the force of a Dominion statute, irrespective of the will of any province, once that province passes laws relating to liquor within its own domain. As to whether the Act prevents the ingress of liquor to be used contrary to the laws of the province, I say that it does; those are its terms and the validity of its terms has never been challenged.



PRIVILEGE-MR. PEDLOW

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (Renfrew South) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I find on page 79 of the printed copy before me of Votes and Proceedings of yesterday that an amendment standing in my name to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Ontario South (Mr. Smith) is not the amendment as moved by me yesterday. The amendment as it appears in the Votes and Proceedings reads: Shall I read it?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The correct amendment as moved by me will be found on page 762 of Hansard. Shall I read it?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would like this error corrected at the earliest possible moment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This matter was
brought to my attention a few moments before I came into the Chamber, and the hon. member is quite right in his statement of fact. As I understand it, a suggested alteration in the amendment was engrossed upon its back by the Prime Minister, and when the document was transmitted to the proper officer of the House to have it entered in the Votes and Proceedings he
quite inadvertently, through incorrect instruction, put in the amended motion as prepared by the Prime Minister. The amendment as submitted by the hon. gentleman apears on page 762 of Hansard, and I will see that the proper entry is made in the Journals.



PURCHASES OF GERMAN GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is it the intention of the Government to follow the same course as that pursued by the Chancellor of Great Britain in regard to payments of purchases from Germany? I find that it is the intention of the Imperial Government to pass an enactment whereby 50 per cent of the purchase money for German goods will be paid to the British Government and 50 per cent will be paid to the seller, and the German seller will receive a voucher for the amount-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon.
gentleman has submitted his question. The answer, if any is to come, should come from the Government.


Arthur Meighen: I have no difficulty in answering. The matter has not yet been submitted to the Government in such definite form that there is anything for consideration.



AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition) :: Can the Minister ouf Finance inform us when the House will receive the remaining volumes of the Auditor-General's Report? According to the Statute the entire report should be placed upon the table of the House within a week of the assembling of Parliament, and with the report incomplete the volumes that have already been tabled are of little value.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: The hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) was kind enough to bring the matter of the Auditor General's report to my attention a couple of days ago, and since getting the benefit of that reminder, I have had the pleasure of tabling the first two volumes of the report. I hope to have the third volume ready for the House this week, and as soon as the work is finished on that, I shall use my utmost efforts to have the rest of the report tabled. I hope to have the complete report brought down to the House earlier than has been the usual practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My. hon.
friend speaks of the "usual practice." The usual practice has come to be to bring the last volume of the report down about the end of the session. That is a practice to which we wish to take very strong exception. The law requires that the entire report shall be brought down within a week after the assembling of Parliament. My hon. friend can see that it is impossible for us to discuss the Estimates until we have the full report.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What I was referring to was my anxiety to get away from that practice of almost immemorial standing which my hon. friend deplores. I think I got the complete report down earlier last year, and I am going to try and get it down still earlier this year.



THE BUDGET-APPROXIMATE DATE

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Do not think the practice is of immemorial standing. I should like to submit a question to my hon. friend touching the Budget. I do not mean to express a desire that he shall at the present stage fix a date on which the Budget shall be brought down, but so much of the business of the House depends on the presentation of the Budget that it would be helpful if he would give us some information as to the approximate date he expects to bring it down. I should not like to ask my hon. friend to be definite.
. Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance): The hon. member will realize the difficulty of intimating even an approximate date at this moment. He himself has gone through the toils and trials and tribulations that a revision of the tariff entails. As soon as you get up to a certain point, you get a lot of other information, and delegations come from all over Canada. I have been busy all this morning with delegations, and will be busy with them again this afternoon. These gentlemen, of course, have the right to be heard and to have their cases considered as well as one can possibly consider them. All I can say is that there is no stint of time being given to the question, and the Budget will be brought down at the earliest possible moment.



GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE DEEP WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 8, the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Keefer, for the appointment of a Special Committee on deep water-
[Sir Henry Drayton.1
way transportation from the Great Lakes to the sea by way of the St. Lawrence river.
Mr. DANIEL D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):	Mr. Speaker,
subject of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) is not altogether new in this House, for we have discussed more than once most of what is included in that resolution. If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I should like to express my appreciation of his having brought this matter before the House and of the very able manner in which he presented his case. His arguments were strong, and I am sure that hon. members who had the opportunity of hearing his speech were pleased with his presentation of the case. But as he dealt with the subject matter of the resolution largely from the point of view of Ontario and the West, I think it is only fair that something should be said from the other end of the navigable route which he proposes to make a more complete avenue of trade than it is at present. In Nova Scotia we appreciate very highly inland navigation as far as it goes. The river St. Lawrence up as far as Montreal, and as much /further west as we can take full advantage of it, is pf great bene fit to the people of the province of Novr Scotia, and if this route is extended furthei west to Port Arthur, as the hon. membei proposes, it would certainly be much more beneficial to Nova Scotia and the Maritime Provinces generally than it is at present.
I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the great opposition to Confederation in the Maritime Provinces, and particularly in Nova Scotia, was that by reason of the terms of Confederation, and the tariffs that were being imposed, our trade with the New England states was being shut off, and nothing appeared to be in sight to take its place. The people of the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick had at that time a very profitable trade with the New England states, and those who were opposed to Confederation contended, and with much force, that if this trade with the New England states was shut off by reason of Confederation, and no new trade routes opened in other directions, we would be getting the worst of the bargain. The building of the Intercolonial railway was therefore proposed as a remedy. We were told that it would afford an avenue for the sending of our goods to Ontario and western points. But I need not remind you. Sir, that we have

been very much disappointed in that respect. The freight rates have always been a hindrance to that trade, and now they are absolutely prohibitive. So far as our fish is concerned, I never heard of any of it being shipped west except one-half barrel of herring to Edmonton, and by the time it reached there, though its value was only $3, the freight had amounted to $8.50. That will show hon. gentlemen at once how impossible it is for us to hope for any trade with the West if we have no better means of transportation and no lower rates than the present railway communication affords. Let me say at once that I am for railways myself; if the rates were such that we could develop our trade by rail communication, I would be in favour of that means because with water transportation we are at best precluded at certain seasons of the year from the shipment of goods- traffic is suspended owing to the freezing over of the St. Lawrence. Canals are also frozen. So at certain seasons of the year there would always be a suspension of traffic owing to the waterway being unnavigable. That, of course, would not be the case with a railway; traffic would go on uninterruptedly. I need not say that in order to have a happy community and trade conditions that will be satisfactory to the different provinces, it is highly necessary that there should be reciprocity in trade between the several provinces. If we in the East get flour from Manitoba and the West, and manufactured goods from Ontario and Quebec, it is only rational to suppose that the people of the Maritime Provinces would be anxious to ship their goods west in exchange for the commodities that they buy there. If the traffic is all one way and our perishable goods cannot reach the people of the West in a fresh state, things will not be satisfactory. We therefore have a strong desire that there should be a means of getting our fish, and also our coal and lumber and whatever else we have to exchange, conveyed to the interior of the country in such a way that we shall be able to carry on a satisfactory trade.
Under present conditions it is highly desirable that we should encourage proper immigration to this country in order to swell our population. We have now only eight or eight and one-half millions of people, and we are faced with per capita responsibilities which are enormous, startling, to say the least; and it is not at all conducive to success in any attempt to bring immigrants to this or any other country when
you are obliged to tell them that the per capita debt is very large, the cost of living very high, and conditions such as to require a great deal of money to be able to live comfortably. If this navigation were opened it would have a tendency, for one thing, to cheapen food. We in the province-from which I come pay $16 per barrel for flour to-day, and have been paying in the neighbourhood of this sum for a number of years past. Perhaps it is a little cheaper now, but it is most extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, that in this country, where we have millions upon millions of bushels of wheat, and from year to year are told that there are large surpluses which we are not using, the poor miner, the poor lumberman, and the poor fisherman should have to pay $16 for a barrel of this staple commodity. There is something wrong somewhere when in this country, where we have such enormous production, and possibilities for further production of wheat, that we should have to pay as much for flour as in countries where wheat is not grown. I submit to the Government and to the people generally that there should be some way of surmounting this difficulty, and we should do everything in our power to bring about such a condition as would enable us with confidence to point out to prospective immigrants that at least one thing they might be certain of, and that was that there was plenty to eat for everybody in the country and that this was not an expensive place to live in. Now, if by opening of navigation between Port Arthur and the Atlantic -and I believe a great part has been opened already-we can make transportation cheaper, so that the flour from the West can reach the Maritime Provinces more easily than at present, our people would have every reason to anticipate great results.
So far as coal is concerned, let me say to the hon. gentleman who moved this resolution, and particularly to the Government, that one thing of which we can assure them is the fact that we have inexhaustible quantities of magnificent coal in the province of Nova Scotia. The people of Ontario have in the past been somewhat fastidious in regard to the quality of the coal they burn, and they have complained that our coal smoked, was sooty, and so forth. Well, let me say that we in Nova Scotia think we are just as good as any other people on earth,-not better, but just as good-and we find our coal quite satisfactory and conducive to comfort. It gives us all the warmth and comfort we need, and
[Stage Direction]
for that reason we should have no hesitation whatever in recommending its use to the people of Ontario and other provinces further west to which it could be carried if this channel of communication were opened. As to the rohte which my hon. friend proposes. I am not in a position to offer very much criticism, but the sooner we get some satisfactory route the better.
The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) is not here, but I notice that the other night he made a speech on this question, and I wish to compliment him, in passing, on the adroitness which he displayed on that occasion. As a verbal juggler and acrobat I think he is unrivalled in this country of ours. People marvel at the dexterity of a man who is able to keep five or six balls in the air at the same time, but I never before saw a man who could keep five or six canals in the air with such success as the Minister of Railways and Canals. He did this with wonderful skill. By the way, I am glad to see that^ he has now come into the House, and I want to tell him that I should like to know how he was able to keep six canals in the air at once as he did the other day. I trust that he will be prevailed upon to do something besides dazzling the eyes of the Canadian people with this art of his of keeping these things in suspense. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that in exchange for the things which the people of the West have to give us we can supply coal especially; and I think it is common knowledge also that we have inexhaustible schools of magnificent fish in Nova Scotia. It is unnecessary to tell hon. gentlemen in this House that fact, because, judging from the fish they eat in this part of the country, I would say that they know nothing whatever about good fish. This magnificent food they get only when it is spoiled. I have, been eating at the restaurant here since coming to Ottawa and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I never eat fish-I simply cannot; it is so unlike the genuine article that I cannot touch it. But as I see other gentleman eat it with apparent relish it strikes me that they do so because they do not know better. Now, if this navigation were opened and our ships could come up here with this article of food, I am sure that a great development would take place in connection with this industry, such as has never been known before. You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I d6, that we are only touching the fringe of the industry. We are only at the edge of what can be produced from the fisheries in our prov-fMr. McKenzie.]
ince, and on the coast generally. I have no desire to take up more time. My heartiest approval is given to the resolution and the ideas which it contains. I again congratulate the hon. gentleman who introduced it upon bringing it before the House, and I sincerely trust that something substantial will result. The Minister of Railways and Canals made a speech the other night which I scarcely think the hon. mover might have expected as a comment on his resolution. We were told that a mere letter had been written to an official of this Government by the Minister of Railways telling him to do certain things. Well, suppose we had the answer which that official will make to the letter. What good is that? I am not aware of any arrangement between this country and the United States by which we can ask some official of this Government to make a certain report which could be binding Qn that country.
Hon. Mr. REID:: Perhaps my hon.
friend will allow me to correct him. He does not understand what I really intended to convey with reference to the letter. I desired to explain to the House that the Government had taken action by writing a letter to the Chairman of the International Joint Waterways Commission bringing the matter to their attention, and also that an Order in Council had been passed bringing it before the United States Government. The whole question has been placed in the hands of the International Joint Waterways Commission-composed, of course, of representatives of both countries-and they are now making an examination and will present an official report. The report will be signed by the Commissioners of both countries, but, of course, it is not binding in any way. It will be merely an official report and both governments will be in a position to take action as they see fit.


Mr. McKENZIE :: I quite understood the position set forth by the minister the other night, and it is exactly as I stated. It was a letter written by the minister to an official of this Government. It was not a letter addressed to the Commission because I took particular care to find out what kind of a communication it was. If we expect to get a report from the Waterways Commission it would be in response to a request sent to it by this Government. The letter in question being merely a communication sent to one of our own officials that official would no doubt reply over his own signature, which would mean nothing

at all. Let me tell the Minister of Railways the matter is one that should be governed by common sense rules. In a matter of an international character it is customary for delegates appointed by this Government to meet delegates appointed by the Government of the United States; in other words this Government agrees with the Government of the United States, with the assistance of the Imperial Government, as to what things are to be done by the Waterways Commission. And when, following negotiations between the Governments concerned, an agreement is reached, then our Government will submit legislation to Parliament to confirm the agreement, and a similar course will be pursued by the United States in obtaining the sanction of Congress. Then it will be possible to make some progress with the question. But the mere sending of a letter by the Minister of Railways to an official of our own is certainly a capital way of delaying the matter and deferring action; no beneficial effect will follow as far as the country is concerned. I am sorry that in all the years this Government has been in power they have done nothing with this very important question, but merely cause one letter to be written to an official, good and capable as that official may be. Let me say to the Minister of Railways that I have the highest possible appreciation of his ability as a' politician; in fact there never was a better one connected with the Government. I hope the Government will hang on to him and that he will not be among those ministers whom it is intended to discard. As a man who will keep things going under the least possible pretext they will never get the like of him agaain. There is this further to be said about the present, Government :	They are so busy defending
their own heads, defending their lives and avoiding political graves and political graveyards, that they are paying very little attention to the business of the country; all their time and all their energy is devoted to keeping clear of the undertaker. Let me say in conclusion that I have much pleasure in assisting my good friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) in dealing with this very important question.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford) :: I am sorry I was not in the Chamber when this resolution was introduced. By reason of my absence all I have heard of the debate has been that portion of it which was contributed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) who has just resumed his seat. I have no desire to discuss the merits of the question, as to the desirability of constructing a deep waterway system between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence route. As I understand it, the International Commission, on which the United States and Canada are equally represented, are thoroughly investigating whether the project is feasible from a commercial standpoint, and also whether it would reduce the cost of transportation. The International Commission, I believe, have been looking into the question very carefully and have been holding meetings not only in the various sections of Canada that might be interested in the scheme, but also at various points throughout the United States. If that is the case, and I have no doubt it is, the report of that commission, containing all the evidence given before it, will no doubt be available to every member of this House and each will then be able to consider the question from an intelligent standpoint.
The resolution itself asks that a committee of members of the House be appointed to re-investigate the very question that is being inquired into by the Deep Waterways Commission. Let me point out that it is absolutely impossible for a committee to sit, take evidence, and present a report without incurring a great deal of expense even if that committee be composed of members of Parliament. The resolution also asks that the committee be allowed to sit during the recess, which will also still further increase the expense. Now the estimates that have just been submitted to Parliament call for an expenditure of $586,000,000, and the Supplementary Estimates are yet to be presented. If that is not enough to stagger the mind of any hon. member and set him wondering where we are going to get our revenues, then he must be possessed of a very vivid imagination. Personally I am absolutely opposed to appointing unnecessary commissions of any kind, especially where it will simply be duplicating an enquiry already under way. Therefore, without discussing the matter further I wish to state that I am opposed to this resolution.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead) :: I
believe that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken is the only member who has said anything against the great nat-
4 p.m. ional and international undertaking contemplated by the resolu-

tion. I have closely watched the debate that has so far taken place, and there has been, with that exception, a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of this deep waterways canal and hydro-electric power development plan. Personally I believe it to be the most progressive step taken in Canada for many years. I regard this great waterway as a national asset, and the proposal to harness the forces of nature and place them at the service of mankind is one of its most desirable features. I agree with some hon. gentlemen that the estimate of the probable cost is doubtless far too small, but the territory to be benefited will be extremely large. The area of country which this great waterway will serve, not only in Canada but in the United States produces an abundance of agricultural products, oil, gas, and minerals of all kinds. I strongly believe in developing the St. Lawrence waterway system. In my opinion it will be a great adjunct to the Welland canal upon which so large an amount of money has already been expended. Let us remember that if we bring the channel up to the level of lake Ontario we have assured the wisdom of building the Welland canal.
Knowing something of hydro power development, I believe that the power which would be generated would of itself pay for the whole undertaking, as every horsepower that we did not need could be sold to the great New England centres at a handsome profit. This development, too, will also help us in the electrification of our railways, which is certain to come. Under the most scientific tests it has been demonstrated that the electrically driven locomotive is far and away superior to the steam locomotive both in tractive power and speed, to say nothing of ease of operation.
This country is exceedingly fortunate in owning three great rivers, the Nelson and Mackenzie absolutely, and the St. Lawrence jointly with the United States, although it is practically ours. I do not wish to say anything to make the United States suspicious, but it is patent that we hold the key to the great inland lakes, and we believe that our neighbours will not only help this project forward, but we will assess them on the basis of tonnage so the scheme will pay for itself. As some authorities have said, we could scrap it after a year's operations. But we of course would not do that. We believe that the Americans will pay towards the deepening of this waterway and also contribute
LMr. Baldwin.]
towards its maintenance on a percentage basis. I would not for one moment defend this proposition if I thought it would mean increasing our national debt, but I fully believe that it would be good policy to proceed with this undertaking which would be to the great advantage of the country and without being a great burden on our shoulders. Think of the cheapening of food brought down from the West for the benefit of the East;, and think of the corresponding benefit to the West from Nova Scotia coal being carried direct to the head of the Lakes.
Then this development should be undertaken as an indirect benefit, a stimulus to immigration, and we should see to it that in all contracts Canadian labour and Canadian material are used; and I know that we have factories that can make everything requisite for hydro power development.
Then we need cheap labour. When we go down to the vicinity of New York city and see the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the development of elevated, surface and subway lines of railway we can only regret that we also have not a similar development. We know that all that was done with cheap labour. At the present time hydro development costs about three to ffour dollars where before the war it only cost one dollar. The last word in hydro-electric power to-day depends on cheap labour. But let this international arrangement be made so that the immense power to be derived from the St. Lawrence river can be developed proportionately for the United States and for Canada, for nothing -will give a greater stimulus to our trade, and nothing will enthuse Canadians more than to see oceangoing boats steaming straight through to the head of the Lakes.
I believe the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) mentioned the Georgian Bay water system. I must be an optimist, for I believe in that too. But let me assure hon. members that in developing the St. Lawrence route we shall supplement the Georgian Bay project and bring its accomplishment closer. The St. Lawrence route is a necessity for ocean-going boats, while the Georgian Bay route is only suitable for small craft. Therefore, there need be no friction between these two routes, and I am just as much in favour of the Georgian Bay route when the time for it comes, as I am of this route.
A great deal has been said in this House about the high cost of transportation.

We know that it is very high and is adding to the cost of lving. Now, this hydro development will have a tendency to increase our domestic trade for we will not have to go to Pennsylvania for coal when our railways are electrified, and we know that no other country in the world is so well endowed by nature in this respect as is Canada. It makes my heart throb to think of the great potential wealth of this vast country of ours, and I am highly pleased to think that this project is working into shape which will result in the greatest possible expansion from the centre to the circumference of this great country.
I am also in favour of the Hudson Bay route. There is nothing local about me!
We have always said that we are proud of the West, and the building of this canal will help to still further develop the West. We have the finest waterways of any country in the world, and their development must result in making this great country of ours still greater and more prosperous.


Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton) :: Living on the chain of Great Lakes, I naturally take a very keen interest in this question, although, as a Canadian, I should be equally as interested were I not living there. There is one thing that always appeals to me in reference to this project, especially when I hear hon. members asking, as I believe I heard the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) ask a little while ago: Could it be carried out as a commercial proposition? To my mind the answer to that question is to be found in the very strong opposition to this scheme from certain parts of the United States.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him? I did not say that I questioned whether the scheme could be carried out as a commercial proposition. I said that the International Commission would no doubt report on whether it was a commercial proposition or not.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I beg my hon. friend's pqrdon and withdraw my remark, but I understood him the other way. There can be no question that this scheme must be a commercial proposition, because the best minds in this country and in the United States have been brought to bear on the subject, and there would not be such strenuous opposition to it from certain interests in the United States if they did not regard it as a commercial proposition. Providence has placed this great waterway at our disposal, and it is our duty to develop it
as far as we can. It is true that the cost would be great-some estimate it at $100,000,000, others at as high as $300,000,000. I do not say that at the moment Canada is in a position to embark upon an expenditure so great, but I do say that as the result of any expenditure on this account there would be direct returns to the people. To my mind, many expenditures we are making to-day might be cut off and the amounts thus saved applied to a development project of this kind. There is no question of the fact that it would bring about a reduction of freight rates and result in a very great development of electrical energy-and more electrical energy must be developed in this country in order to increase development in the way of manufacturing, the production of fuel, and so on. If these results can be accomplished by the deepening of this water system, the people of Canada will be fairly repaid for any expenditure they make on that account.
A further result from the carrying out of this project would be the development of the ports of Montreal and Quebec-and the development of these ports would result in benefit to the whole country. It has been proved on numerous occasions that small vessels which have crossed the ocean can go up to the head of the Lakes, and it obviously follows that with the deepening of our waterways and the enlargement of our canal system, larger vessels can do the same; bulk will not have to be broken so often, freight rates will go down, and a general benefit will result to the people. This is a question, therefore, that this House and successive Houses must take into their most serious consideration, with a view to seeing whether or not a way can be found to carry out this project. If a committee of this House is not appointed to take evidence, or even to review the evidence already taken by the International Joint Commission, the report of that body may be given little attention, the matter may be shelved and nothing done for some considerable time. This is a live question in many respects; as to the details I do not wish to detain the House now, but it is a question which deeply and vitally affects the interests of the whole people. I therefore have very much pleasure in supporting the motion of my hon. friend from Port Arthur.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: I am sorry that I have not heard all that has been said during the course of this debate, but I do not think there

should be any lack of unanimity among hon. members with regard to the resolution before the House. A matter of most vital importance in this country is the development of our national resources in such a way that Canada will receive the greatest possible benefit from them. The water-Powers of Canada are unquestionably among the greatest natural resources which the country possesses. They have this enormous advantage over other natural resources: so long as the earth lasts, water will last and water-powers wili exist. It is therefore extremely important, and in the public interest, not only that they should be developed but also that they should be nationally owned and controlled and that the public should get the direct benefit of these vast resources.
It is absolutely necessary for Canada to take such action as will help to get her out of her present state of debt, particularly that vast load of debt which the war has put upon her. The St. Lawrence route is the greatest national resource that Canada has. It has an enormous advantage over every other public work that this country has heretofore undertaken. The development of that route, the making of a depth of thirty feet over the sills in the canals, so that ships drawing thirty feet of water may go up and down the St. Lawrence, will bring about the production of such an amount of electrical energy that the people of Canada will receive by way of rental an amount sufficient to pay the interest on the vast cost of this development. It does not seem, therefore, necessary to argue that as soon as possible a report should be obtained with regard to the matter and data put before Parliament so that intelligent action can be taken. I understand that an international commission has been dealing with the matter, and I assume that at any early day we shall have engineering and other statements which will enable us to form an intelligent idea of what can be done and what the cost will be. There is no doubt that the work would have to be undertaken internationally, because at least thirty-five states of the United States have so far placed themselves on record as being in favour of the project. The State of New York has uniformly opposed the project, but so far as Canada is concerned, the only opposition to it that I have heard has come from the city of Montreal. Well,
I do not think that opposition is serious, because, when all is said and done, the great city of Montreal will undoubtedly benefit as much as the rest of Canada by
[Mr. Bristol.J
this project. The only question in the minds of shipping people is whether this project should be carried out, or whether what is known as the Georgian Bay Canal route would be the better. Now, I have [DOT] heard rmjn who were the best people, so far as I could find, to express an opinion in the matter, say that it would take so long for ships to cover the long canal distance involved in the Georgian Bay route, the rate of speed being necessarily slow, that the thing would be impracticable from a shipping point of view, and that the St. Lawrence route is the natural and the best route for the shipping interests of this country. We can get the coal resources of Cape Breton up to the head of the Lakes only if we carry out this great project of canalizing the St. Lawrence; and what it would mean to the people of Canada to buy practically all their coal in their own country is something which no one can readily compute. But I venture to say that one of the most important things to the people of Eastern Canada is the obtaining of their own coal in Canada from Canadian coal mines. The completion of the project which we have been discussing to-day would put us in such a position that; at least so far as Eastern Canada is concerned, we should not have to depend upon the United States for our chief supply of coal. Moreover, the ships that bring the coal up from the Nova Scotia districts could take grain down there, and that grain could be shipped from Nova Scotia to the Old Country during the winter months.
The importance of this project is so great, in my opinion, that we should give it immediate consideration in the general interests of Canada. It would lead to the cheapening of freight rates from the great West; it would produce from four to five million horse-power right in the centre of Canada, where labour is easily obtained and transportation easily available for the manufactured goods which would be turned out in large quantities as the result of the utilization of these vast water-powers. It would enable us also, as I have said, to get supplies of coal from Nova Scotia to the head of the Lakes; to send our grain down to the eastern ports, and, generally speaking, tc promote the development of our great natural resources.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (Lambton East) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the addresses that have been delivered with regard to

the resolution now before the House, and I have come to the conclusion that this is another proposal under which the people of Canada are going to be asked to expend an enormous sum of money in' order to develop transportation on our inland waters. I would respectfully ask the House, before reaching a decision on the subject, to consider this question: We have already expended over $400,000,000 on deepening, buoying and lighting our rivers, building- canals, dredging, deepening and lighting our harbours, for the purpose of cheapening the rates on the freight carried on those waters. What has been the result? Simply this, that the more money we spend, the higher go the rates. The rates have been doubled, trebled and quadrupled, and this Parliament has no control. The time has come when we must take a decided stand on this question, and I for one would oppose the expenditure of any large sum of money on this proposition until Parliament has absolute control over the rates that are to be charged on our inland and coastal waters. It is very nice for these gentlemen to get up one after another and say: "Oh well, we will go on and spend this enormous sum of money, three or four hundred million dollars, in carrying out this proposition, and we will give you cheaper rates." That has always been the cry-that was the cry that helped to build the canals. It is the same old cry that men are making who are coming and asking this Government to deepen, buoy and light harbours, deepen rivers and build canals. It is the same old story. We are going on spending tens of millions of dollars in building the Welland canal. What control have we over the freight rates? Absolutely none. Yet, vte meet here session after session, and when a measure is brought in asking the Government to have control over these rates, we sit here and ignore that measure. I hope, before this session is closed, we shall have control at least over the rates on freight - transported on our inland waters. Until such time comes, I question whether it would be wise for us to appoint another committee and go on and see how much we can spend on such a proposition as this. I am in hearty sympathy with any means of developing transportation on our great inland waterways, but I am also in this position that I for one will at least demand that we have control over those waters and over the rates, tolls, and
charges that are made by the vesselmen who operate on those waters.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) :: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it is not my indention to detain the attention of the House at any great length, but I think it is my duty to express my views on the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer). I am certainly in favour of all that can be done towards the development of the country, but my opinion is that the motion which is now before the House has no other object than that of preventing the Georgian Bay canal from being built, and this, from my point of view, would be much more in the interests of the country, than would be my hon. friend's proposal. I listened the other day to the remarks made in the House, and from these I infer that if this resolution were adopted, the United States would benefit by the Canadian money which we would spend. I must, say that I am surprised at the new position taken by my hon. friends on the Government side of the House, they who, in 1911, were against any trade with the Americans and who now wish to let the latter take advantage of a Canadian undertaking. I think it would be more reasonable, Mr. Speaker, to make only such expenditure as would be fully helpful to Canada, and I have always understood that the Georgian Bay canal would be built eritirely and exclusively for Canada's benefit. I am astonished at such readiness to spend the large amount which would be required if a committee were appointed to report on the deepening of the St. Lawrence river, when we already have the reports made on the Georgian Bay canal, by most competent engineers, amongst whom, Mr. Sanford Evans; these reports have never been submitted to the House for consideration.
On behalf of my constituents who are interested in the building of the canal, I certainly will object to the hon. member's motion, as also to all the outlay which it would entail. I therefore request that the House adopt the necessary measures, so that the Georgian Bay canal may be built as soon as possible; this undertaking is of special interest to Canada and it would contribute largely to the development of the country.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, this is a project
which is not only of national interest, but of international interest, and when a question of developing the great natural resources of Canada arises, every Canadian

is apt immediately to favour any such development on any occasion, at any time and for whatever purpose it may be intended. During the last twenty-five years many projects have been put forward in Canada; projects which to-day are calling for the serious attention of our people, projects that have not always received, perhaps, the attention they deserve; projects which have been neglected in their development and which have placed Canada to-day in a position which calls for the thoughtful attention of every business man and every tiller of the soil. For the first time in my Parliamentary life, I am not able to agree with my esteemed friend, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie), who views this project with great equanimity, and who speaks of the great prospects for the development of trade between Nova Scotia and the other Maritime Provinces and the western provinces.
This project, as I have said, is not only national, but international,-and this is the serious point of the question which must cause every Canadian to halt in his decision in order to see what may be the effect upon the nation at large, and not merely a portion of the country which may be more directly affected by the construction of any proposed public work. This project will be for the great benefit of Canada or it will be to the great detriment of Canada. And with our great expanse of country stretching for thousands of miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and when we know that our great desire is to make Canada a nation, with every portion of the country as one in its aspirations, the East for the West and the West for the East, I consider that, instead of entering upon such a project as lightly, as I am afraid some of our Canadians are entering upon it, we should pause for a moment and consider its effect, national as well as commercial, facilities which will keep the West and the East together first of all, in order to keep Canada within the Empire, a nation worthy of the name.
It is this commercial dismemberment that attracts my attention today. I was not in the House when my hon. friend from Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) presented his resolution, but I have read his speech in Hansard and I know that he presented his case in the best possible colours and in the best language that could be used. I have also read the remarks of my hon. friend from Regina

(Mr. Cowan), who hopes that by this new route the products of the West will be carried to the ports of the East. Those ports were placed there by the hand of Providence, not especially for the development of the Maritime provinces, but for the benefit of the western .provinces-ports which will be able to take care of all possible development in the West for centuries to come, and will help to build up a united Canada in every possible direction.
This waterway project is an international one, and we know we are in a false position at the present time on account of our traffic going to the United States instead of over Canadian railways. Had the proper attention been given to that great project initiated not so many years ago by the veteran leader of Canada for fifteen years, had the Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Quebec and St. John and Halifax been looked after as it should have been, Canada would not be confronted today with the problem of high freight rates, This problem of freight rates is on our hands because that great project has been neglected by the Government, and it was the only project that could unite Canada East and Canada West by transportation facilities. The products of the Prairie Provinces at the present time are taken to the city of Winnipeg, and then go to a foreign country through United States channels. Our national railways have immense deficits to-day, and next year we will have a deficit of $100,000,000. As a Canadian I believe that the people of this country will appreciate the necessities of the moment, but I do not think they will endorse this project of opening new channels of transportation and further neglecting the one that, if properly handled, would have made Canada a better nation than it is to-day. I sympathize with the Minister of Railways in having to present to Parliament the deficit existing on the National roads to-day, but I say that if the Government that took office in 1911 had been inspired with goodwill towards the Transcontinental and given its attention to the development of the road from Winnipeg to the Maritime provinces, we would not be confronted with the situation that exists to-day. At this time we should consider the best way out of our present difficulties rather than the project my hon. friend from Port Arthur and Kenora proposes, which, however much it might benefit Canada, would be of greater advantage still to the United States. It could not be otherwise, in view of the means the Ameri-

can nation possesses compared with ours. All the traffic of the American West and the Canadian West would go through American channels, just the same as it has done in the past. I do not think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways will contradict me when I say that the deficits on our national railways to-day are due to the fact that we do not use them. I think everybody in the House will agree that we have commanded only forty per cent of the export trade of the West, while the other sixty per cent has gone through United States channels. What we should have done to stop the deficits was, not so much to increase the rates as to get business for the roads instead of allowing that business to go to the United States. Had we commanded ninety-five or one hundred per cent of the traffic from the West in the last five or six years, we would have scarcely any deficits at all on our railways to-day. The problem that should engage our attention to-day is how to secure for our National railways the traffic that originates in Canada, and every possible step should be taken by the Department of Railways and Canals, by the Government, and by this Parliament, to see that every bushel of grain from Winnipeg should be directed along the Transcontinental to Quebec and the harbours of the Maritime provinces. This would mean a saving of from ten to fifteen cents a bushel to the producers of the prairie provinces. That route saves 214 miles of transportation between Winnipeg and Quebec, and equally to St. John and Halifax. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid) is very much concerned over the amount of coal he has to use over the road, especially during the winter season. I would tell him that with proper usage of the Transcontinental, he could save ten to fifteen per cent of his coal on the journey from Winnipeg to Quebec. The road was especially built for heavy loads and long hauls, except the last few miles, which this Government degraded with the object, no doubt, of saying that the road was not up to standard. I think every sensible man is convinced that the road as a whole cannot be surpassed, and it is the only link we have to bring the products of the west to the east, and to( transport to the west the products of the east and those that come from across the sea. Nature is there, and the road is there. No one will deny that if you can save a haul of 215 miles on a certain road, it must be cheaper than a longer route. It is simply a matter of judgment, but it
calls for the attention of every one in authority, and for patriotic effort on the part of the Government and Parliament. I think that before going further into transportation problems it would be well for us to undertake, the proper equipment of our railways, so that we might make the fullest use of them, for they are in need of amelioration. The Transcontinental from Winnipeg to Quebec-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member is quite justified in saying that no expenditure should be incurred for waterway transportation until our railroads are more fully utilized. Up to that point I did not feel it my duty to interrupt the hon. member, but I must point out that he cannot, on this motion, discuss in detail the administration of the railways of Canada.


Onésiphore Turgeon: No one, Mr. Speaker, is more anxious to obey your rulings than the member for Gloucester. But there is such a close connection between the project under consideration and the question of railways that it is rather difficult for a member who feels strongly that something should be done to improve railway transportation in Canada, not to transgress the ruling you have just made. However, I shall attempt to bring by remarks to a close as speedily as possible.
Let me say that the Georgian Bay canal enlists my sympathy to a greater extent than the deepening of the Lakes, because it is a purely Canadian route. Now, I hope that my hon. and genial friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) will consider this subject in all its bearings and urge upon the House nothing that will not be in the best interests of the whole country. I should not like to see this country embark on any scheme that might not be commercially wise, nor commendable from the standpoint of patriotism. While I do not say that the proposal before the House is one that does not deserve consideration, I do say that it is one which the people of Canada can well afford to let stand in abeyance until we have placed our railways in a better position and have been able to reduce freight rates through the better operation of the roads. I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is considering the improvement of our railways, and until this is done I do not think other things should be attempted. I cannot support the motion.


William Findlay Maclean: I fear I shall be open to the same criticism

which the previous speaker encountered by discussing the railway question when a canal proposition is under consideration. But that hon. gentleman (Mr. Turgeon) has brought before the House an important fact, namely, that we have an immense expenditure in this country in connection with our railways and that we are now seeking to improve our railway system by consolidations. While I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea of improving our transportation by waterway, by better canalization of the lakes and rivers, I say that the urgent need in this country to-day in regard to transportation is the immediate consolidation of the railways, to the end that freight rates may be reduced, as proposed by the hon. member who has just spoken. I hope that before this debate is over, indeed within the next two or three weeks, we shall have an announcement from the Government that they do intend, almost immediately, to consolidate our railway systems and so bring the relief to transportation which is loudly called for at the present time by farmers of the West and by residents of all portions of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: What does consolidation mean?


William Findlay Maclean: It means what it ought to mean,-great economy, great efficiency, and other desirable things of that kind, not to mention lower freight rates.


William Stevens Fielding: Consolidation of what roads?


William Findlay Maclean: The roads we have taken over but which we have not yet consolidated.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the House will immediately realize that the speaker was more or less justified in ruling that the administration of our railways should not be widely discussed upon this resolution. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks as far as possible to the question of waterways development.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. friend opposite tried to lead me aside.


William Stevens Fielding: No, no.


William Findlay Maclean: He tried to make me wander from the subject. I take it that the subject before the House is this, that we are trying to improve our waterway transportation, and it is a very expensive proposition. The canalization involved, harbour improvements, the building of ships

of one kind and another, must appeal to hon. gentlemen as matters that would entail considerable expenditures. And in these times, when the country has such an enormous debt and has so many obligations to meet, if we cannot at present improve our transportation by way of this expensive proposition we can at least do something to reduce transportation charges by the improvement of our railway service, an improvement that is due and ought to be carried out almost immediately. The criticism in the country to-day is that we are under enormous expenses in connection with our railways, and that we have great deficits; and, therefore, if we cannot just for the moment go into the expensive proposition of deeper channels, new canals, improved harbours, and so forth, the Government and this parliament ought to do something immediately in the direction of reducing freight charges in Canada by the amalgamation and the co-ordination of the railroads which we now have, for their diversified administration as well as the duplications that exist represent a great waste of money. I might say on behalf of the people of Ontario that we have every sympathy with the proposal to deepen waterways and also the proposal to increase power development, which would come from the deepening of our rivers and canals. I agree with what has been said to-day as to the enormous electrical energy that could be developed in connection with these deeper waterways, and while it would not mean an entire settlement of the proposition, the Government could take up any day the first great development, namely, that between Montreal and the lower end of Lake Ontario, and in that way we should have a great source of power and be able to bring sea-going vessels into Lake Ontario. Now, if this scheme is a good one, and if you can bring ships right up Lake Ontario, you have proved the whole case. But if that preliminary part of the scheme fails, there is no need to go on. The thing that should be undertaken now, and perhaps we can do it by reason of the great demand for electrical energy, is, by co-operation on the part of the Government with the United States, to carry out an improvement at the lower end of the St. Lawrence and thus allow steamships to get to Lake Ontario. If that proved successful we should be justified in going further. These are questions connected with transportation that notwithstanding our great commitments,

must be dealt with. They ought to be dealt with now, and now to my mind is the time to press for some kind of co-operation between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada in the direction of deeping our waterways system.


Mr. SAMUEL WILLIAM JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: I think the discussion during the past day or two on the resolution introduced by my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) indicates as clearly as could possibly be indicated that a general election is impending. Within the last thirty or thirty-five years, which is as far as I can remember, when we have had discussion on the Georgian Bay canal in the House and in the newspapers of the government of the day, that was invariably followed by a general election. Engineers were located in different parts of the country, mostly in doubtful constituencies, with mysterious looking tripods and other instruments for the purpose of influencing the electorate. To use a rather slang expression the government used to "get away with it." But to-day it seems to me that that old trick is played out. My hon. friend from Port Arthur coming from a region which perhaps is a little more backward than the constituencies farther east from which some of us come, probably thinks that the people of that district can be induced to vote for the Government on representations such as those made by the member supporting the Government. Otherwise I cannot see why such a resolution as this should be introduced at this juncture following the bringing down of the Estimates which indicate that we have to provide for expenditures of something in the region of $600,000,000. That was more than twice what the national debt of Canada was seven or eight years ago. To-day we have to provide for $609,000,000, notwithstanding that my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) told us blandly that before the war $100,000,000 or $160,000,000 meant a great deal. Now, said he, we have got accustomed to spending such vast sums it does not mean as much as it did at that time. Well, that is a curious kind of reasoning. Before we spent that two billions of dollars we had it, and we could have spent it very much better than we can now because we have not got it. But notwithstanding that these two gentlemen from the Twin cities-who think in pairs and hunt in pairs-for reasons best known to themselves are advocating the expenditure
of enormous sums of money in the face of the crushing debt the interest upon which' we have to meet. Physicians tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the first symptoms of paresis, a form of insanity well known, is the hallucination of the patient that he is possessed of illimitable sums of money, he proceeds to squander it in a reckless way and in due course he is examined mentally and is sent to an asylum. Now if the Government does not take care some person will have to examine them mentally and see that they are put in a place where they cannot lavishly spend the money of the people of this country. The scheme, so far as I can see, is one of the wildest that has been brought before the House-having regard to all the circumstances-since I have had the honour of being a member of it. In face of the fact that we are overbuilt in the matter of railways and will not be able to catch up for the next twenty-five or thirty years, in the face of the fact that the Estimates already brought down contain a vote of $140,000,000 to provide for these
5 p.m. railways-and I understand that during the recess an Order in Council for an expenditure of something like $77,000,000 was obtained by the Government for the purpose of keeping these railways running-I say in the face of that, it is a foolhardy thing on the part of any member to get up and advocate a matter of this kind even in an academic way. We ought to be brought to our senses in the matter of expenditure of money; and representing as I do the city of Montreal, which contains within its borders something like ten per cent of the entire population of Canada, I cannot allow this resolution to be placed before the House without getting up and most strenuously objecting to it.
Mr. JOHN A. MAHARG (Maple Creek) : I do not want to be considered as knocking this scheme at all. In my opinion there is considerable merit in the project that is outlined in the resolution but, I think, there are other conditions t'hat we must first take into consideration. In my opinion the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) hit the nail squarely on the head in the few remarks that he made which had reference to the control of the shipping on our Great Lakes. I do not know whether the conditions that exist at the present time in that regard are generally known or not. It is very well known to the grain trade however; and I do not think we are confronted with a bigger combine anywhere on the North American con-

tinent than the one we have to deal with in the shipment of our grain across the Great Lakes. The difficulty is not merely in connection with the freight charges; but a combination exists in connection with insurance and boat space that you cannot possibly get away from. You have got to secure your insurance in connection with your boat space or you do not get your boat space at all; and the rates that you are paying run from twenty-five to thirty per cent more than an individual could get insurance for providing he could secure boat space. Now, that is a condition that should not exist. If the Government are aware of that, I think they are somewhat dilatory in the performance of their duty in not at least attempting to remedy such a situation. Surely we should not be compelled to pay that excessive insurance we are compelled to pay by having to take insurance in conjunction with the boat space. That the two requirements should go together is bad enough; but when it becomes a case of paying twenty-five or thirty-five per cent more than you could obtain your insurance for otherwise if you could secure your boat space, then I think it is time for drastic, and very drastic action to be taken. We quite realize that the question of transportation, in so far as the West is concerned, is a very important one, very important; and water transportation should be of the utmost importance providing that we have control. But, as the member for East Lambton said, why should we continue expending millions and millions of dollars every year, as we are now doing and get absolutely no benefit from it. Rates are going up, and up, and up, and to-day they are about three times what they were a few years ago. A year ago they were about four times what they formerly were. Now, Sir, this combine not only goes to the extent of compelling you to take insurance but they absolutely refuse to move. Why, I have it on good authority that the combine in question even held up the Canada Wheat Board for days and days before they would accept shipment because they could not get the conditions that they asked for. When a combine will hold up a Board that has the Government behind it, what treatment is an individual likely to receive from an organization of that nature. In so far as the West is concerned it is not to-day a matter of water transportation. As regards getting our grain out the facilities are there. They take the grain and take [DOT] 
it much faster than the railroads can get it to the lakes. There has never been a time that I know of that the terminal elevators have ever been full during navigation, or anywhere near full. It has generally been the case that only a very small percentage of the space at the head of the lakes has been occupied by grain when navigation closed. We lost in the West this year through lack of railway transportation far more than we could hope to gain even if we had this increased service and control over the rates. It was quite a common instance for seven, eight, ten and twelve cents, and in fact up as high as fifteen cents a bushel, more to be paid for grain where you had assurance that you could get it forwarded to the head of the Lakes at once as against taking a chance of having it forwarded one, two, three or even four months later.
The House may not be aware of all the features of the grain grade. It is not the price paid for grain, that is, cash grain in store or on track, that governs the price paid to the individual delivering on the railroad. The price he is paid for his grain is the price at which some one will purchase from you for future delivery. That delivery may be one, two, or three months hence. It is not contingent on the cash price at all, and if you were delivering grain to an elevator on a line railway where the buyer knows he is not going to gel it out for, say, three months, then he has tc pay the price that some one will pay him for that grain for delivery three months hence. That accounts for the discrepency. It is not the fault of the grain man at all. He is the victim of circumstances and can only pay the price that he can sell that grain for at the time he can make delivery of it. The contention has been made that the sooner the grain is got out of the country the better. That applies particularly to the interior. Get your grain out from the interior if you can, but immediately you get it to the head of the Lakes you have the Government guarantee of its quality and you have no difficulty in financing. But to my mind it is questionable whether it is advisable to throw all your grain on the European markets in one or two months, as the advocates of this scheme recommend. We have not had any trouble in getting our grain from the head of the Lakes; our trouble has been to get it to the head of the Lakes. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I think it will be wise to withhold further action on this project for some little time. If there is any money to spend, so far as the West

is concerned, I think railway improvements would be of much more value to us at the present time than increased water transportation.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Keefer) who, I presume, will close the debate, rather than to offer any argument. I notice that his resolution calls for the appointment of a committee to make an investigation as to the benefits to be derived from such a scheme.
I think we all know pretty well what the benefits will be, we know they will be great, but what we are more interested in just now is the cost, and it seems to me that if my hon. friend would add that to the scope of the investigation he would be enormously increasing the benefit to be derived from it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would direct the
attention of the House to the circumstance that the mover will close the debate, and therefore, if any other hon. members desire to speak they should do so now.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take any part in this debate, hut in view of the way in which work is duplicated by various departments of the Government, and of the bad example set in that regard by Parliament itself, I want to say a few words. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) for the position he took the other evening in regard to this motion, when he pointed out that not only the work that it is proposed to have done by the terms of this resolution but very much more extensive work is at the present time being done by the International Joint Waterways Commission. For that reason the Minister of Railways and Canals urged upon the hon. gentleman who presented this motion, and supported it in a very interesting speech, the propriety of withdrawing it instead of pressing it forward at the present time. No more timely and wholesome advice than that could possibly be given in view of the financial condition of the country and of the burdens that rest upon it, some of which are outlined in the Estimates that have already been presented to the House. As I said a moment ago, it was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but as the discussion has wandered so far afield and so many opinions, interesting and otherwise, have been vouchsafed regarding transportation generally and the carriage of water-borne goods, I may be permitted, Sir, without infringing any of the rules of the House, to follow for a few minutes the bad example set by some of my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. For that reason, I desire to allude very briefly to that feature of the dis-cfission which compared the benefits of the extension and deepening of the St. Lawrence channel with that of the Ottawa and its tributaries which were referred to as the Georgian Bay canal project. The Georgian Bay canal project has been very fully gone into by a committee of engineers, appointed with the sanction of Parliament and under the direction of a previous government. Investigation was carried on for some years, and in the end a very comprehensive report was made. That investigation and report cost this country a very large amount of money, and it would be just as unreasonable I submit, at this date, to propose that that work be done over again by another committee as it is to propose that a special committee of this House should be appointed to ascertain certain things which, if they have not already been ascertained, will be ascertained in a very short time by the members of the International Joint Waterways Commission. By reason of the fact that the report made by the Georgian Pay Canal Commission may not be familiar to hon. members who at the present time occupy seats in this House, and in view of certain statements in regard to it that have been made in the course of this debate, I would like, for a few moments to direct the attention of the House to some of the findings of the board of eminent engineers which was appointed to investigate that project. In the first place they reported as a result of their investigation:
That a 22-foot waterway for the largest lake boats (600 ft. X 60 ft. x 20 ft. draft) can be established for one hundred million dollars in ten years, and that the annual maintenance will be approximately $900,000, including the operation of storage reservoirs for the better distribution of the flood waters of the Ottawa river.
Then a further finding was set forth in a subsequent paragraph as follows:
That sufficient water may be stored within its own and adjacent watersheds to Operate a summit level above Lake Nipisslng. That to use the Lake Nipissing level as a summit would increase the cost at least $10,000,000 and introduce 12 additional miles of canal cutting.
A still further finding in the same report was in these words:

That the probable^ time taken by a lake freight boat of 12-mile maximum speed, without delays at locks or in meeting other boats, from French River harbour to Montreal would be 70 hours. That the season of navigation will average 210 days from May to November.
And later on in the report it was stated:
That with a storage system as planned, and the tributary basins thereto required for the navigation project, a reliable water-power supply is secured at various dams amounting to 1,000,000 horse-power, which can be developed for about $50 per horse-power.
And finally, there was the following declaration in that report:
That no international waters are aifected.
That feature, Sir-the one I have last mentioned-was one that commended the report to a great many people in this country, and it was a feature which was alluded to the other evening by my friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), and I think, by my friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) in the course of their admirable addresses on this resolution.
Now, let me point out further, Sir, that a great portion of the water-power which this committee found could be developed, is located within easy transmission distance of the territory that would be served from the St. Lawrence. In the first place we have at the Little Chaudiere and Desch-enes at Ottawa, 45,000 horse-power; at Hawkesbury, 65 miles east of Ottawa, 71,000 horse-power; at Point Fortune, 75 miles east of Ottawa, 148,000 horse-power; at the Chats, 30 miles west of Ottawa, 113,000 horse-power; at the Chenaux, 50 miles west of Ottawa, 68,000 horse-power; at Calumet, 63 miles west of Ottawa; 56,000 horsepower; at Rocher Fendu No. 1 and Rocher Fendu No. 2, 65 miles west of Ottawa, 78,000 horse-power; at Paquette Alumette, 85 miles west of Ottawa, 25,000 horsepower; at Des Joachims, 140 miles west of Ottawa, 60,000 horse-power; at Rocher Capitaine, 160 miles west of Ottawa, 80,000 horse-power; at Deux Rivieres, 170 miles west of Ottawa, 38,000 horse-power-or a total in the group I have just mentioned of 782,000 horse-power. In addition to these there are several smaller groups of water-powers, aggregating, according to reliable engineers, about 1,500,000 horsepower. Now, the point I want to make in connection with this group of powers is this: any one of these can be developed for a comparatively small sum of money and would supply the area to be supplied by the development of power on the St. Lawrence, while, on the other hand, accord-[Mt. Murphy.]
ing to eminent engineers, the work on the St. Lawrence would involve the development of four or five blocks of 1,000,000 horse-power each at an expense that is absolutely staggering. That is apparent from the fact that a complete waterway of 30 feet could not be secured on the St. Lawrence for even one ocean going vessel until four or five such power developments had been made. And even if one such block of horse-power were developed, it would merely serve a territory which could be reached by these smaller powers on the Ottawa river and its tributaries.
In this connection some very interesting evidence was given before the International Joint Commission at one of the sessions held last fall, I think it was, in the city of New York, in pursuance of the instructions contained in the letter from the Government to the chairman of the International Joint Commission which was read in this House the other evening by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid). At that meeting one of the most eminent engineering firms in America stated that the cost of developing the St. Lawrence river at one point alone would be $550,000,000, exclusive of the cost of all the shore works and the damages for flooding. Moreover, according to the Minister of Railways-indeed, I think also according to my friend, the member for Port Arthur, who introduced this resolution-there are four or five other such points om the St. Lawrence where the development would be in quantity such as the one I have mentioned and that would cost approximately $550,000,000 in each case.
So that, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the point first raised in this debate by the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and emphasized by subsequent speakers, it is preposterous at the present tima to talk of any such expenditure as would be involved in a scheme of this kind.
However, it is quite true that the resolution of my hon. friend does not propose that this work be proceeded with; it merely proposes an investigation to see what benefits would be derived if such a development were carried out. But as has been pointed out by previous speakers, the appointment of such a committee, with power to sit during the recess, examine witnesses, travel about from place to place and conduct a general roaming inquiry, would of itself involve the expenditure of a sum of money which this Parliament, if it retains its sober senses, would under no circum-

stances think of authorizing. For that reason, Sir, and without going into the merits of these, rival schemes, but having given the House some statistics for the purposes of comparison, I desire to express my entire concurrence with the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Railways that all good purposes would be served, at the present time in any event, by the withdrawal of this motion.


Mr. F. H. KEEFER (Port Arthur and Kenora) :: Mr. Speaker, I think that the object of this motion has been well attained in the full discussion that has taken place thereon. I do not intend to reply to all the different arguments that have been advanced or to refer to all the points that have been raised during the course of the debate; I shall simply touch upon two or three of them. In a general way I might say that with the exception of the remarks of the member for the Cartier division of Montreal (Mr. Jacobs), the whole of the discussion has been favourable to the carrying out of the project, provided certain contingencies were concurrent. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, however, labels the project a foolhardy proposition. I am glad to know that he is not backed up by his city in that respect. I had the pleasure of attending the sitting of the International Joint Commission in Montreal, upon which occasion the city of Montreal took a much wider and wiser view of the matter, one based upon the general benefit which would accrue to the country as the result of the carrying out of this project. The remarks of the member for the Cartier division of Montreal were very much like the views expressed in Buffalo and in New York in opposition to the scheme -and I cannot help feeling that there was a certain amount of selfish interest in the opposition that came from those quarters. Be that as it may, the city of Montreal took a broad view at the public hearing held by the Commission, believing that the carrying out of the project would result in benefit to Montreal as well as to Canada generally. Montreal is able to look beyond its mountain to the West and to realize what the general benefit will be to Canada as well as to herself. I may add that it was not necessary to call in the doctor to examine any of their heads, because they took a sane view of the matter.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend says that the city of Montreal said this and said that. Who was "the city of Montreal"?
48	*


Francis Henry Keefer: Different organizations were represented, including the Board of Trade. The hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) extended a welcome on behalf of the city itself and made the remarks to which I refer with respect to the attitude of the city of Montreal. The only ones who were opposed to it, so far as I heard, were some shipping interests that did not want to have any shipping go past Montreal. The general trend of opinion in that city, however, was in favour of it.
The objection has been raised that any committee appointed under this resolution, would, in its operations, interfere with the work being carried on in regard to this matter by the International Joint Commission. That never was intended, and I stated so in my opening remarks. The idea in view is that when the Commission make their report, when they submit their findings or recommendations and tender the evidence which they heard, a committee of this House will be available to receive that report and look intc it and see that it is distributed among members of the House instead of being consigned to the waste paper basket, as might otherwise be the case. The remarks of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) in that respect were quite apropos. It was never intended-although the resolution is so worded, I must confess-that this committee should attempt to hear evidence on the subject while the International Joint Commission were doing the same work.
The other objection I have heard stated is that the carrying out of this project might interfere with our Canadian National railway receipts; that we have a large amount invested in our railways and must do nothing to interfere with their revenues. Well, in a sense that is a good argument, though it is not sound argument if- we are asked to continue to have people pay extravagant freight rates when they could get their goods forwarded for one-tenth of the rail freight cost. But the point I want to make is that those who object to the proposal on this ground have entirely missed the point of the problem -that this is a water proposition, a proposal for the improvement of water routes, and therefore involving a decrease of water rates only and having no affect upon railway receipts. Everybody will admit that at no time when a water route is available will a person ship by rail, because the cost of shipping by rail is many times as much as by water



You can bring wheat down from Port Col-borne by water for 5 cents, whereas, it costs much more by rail. Nobody would think of shipping by rail in the summer time, so that this project does not compete against railway transportation. It does, however, reduce the cost, as has been stated, of water-borne transportation during the summer months by the amount which has been stated and which has not been controverted. I have here letters from presidents of United States railways, stating that the improvement and development of this scheme will increase their receipts. Why? To-day practically everything is being taken down to New York and Boston and shipped out from those ports, and the result is that the cars are tied up. The cry is "No cars." There is a loss on those cars, a loss of earning power. They are held waiting for return cargoes, or they come back empty a long distance to the West. They all pile in at the eastern seaboard at a certain time, at the close of the year; and these gentlemen point out that, if they had several seaports, especially at a shorter distance, to which the railways could haul their cars, as they do to Port Arthur and Fort William in the summer time, they would avoid that unnecessary cost and loss. They point out that by this process you open up 2,000 miles of additional ocean navigation, and you have many additional ports to which the railways can haul freight and quickly return for more. As regards our Canadian railways, the latter advantage is not so applicable; but the point is this: In the summer time you do not see the wheat brought by rail around the north shore of Lake Superior on any of the three transcontinental railways. In the winter time this question cannot affect the railways, because the water route is not open; there is no competition. Whatever the railway is and whatever the receipts are, those receipts during the winter will come in. I cannot, therefore, see the force of the objection that this is in any way going to decrease the receipts of our national railways, but I can see how it is going to increase their receipts. At the present time, many products of the North West would come out if they could profitably rise over the top of the rates, unnecessarily high by water. Lower the rates and those products will come out and be hauled down to the head of the Great Lakes and our railways will then get those additional receipts. Therefore, I say that this work when completed will increase the receipts

of our national transcontinental railways. In the winter time very little wheat is hauled by rail around the shores of Lake Superior. During the war quite a quantity was brought down at a considerable cost, but the experience is that, on account of the locomotives being able to haul only half the number of cars and the additional loss of time, it is not a profitable business to be hauling unnecessarily in the winter time around Lake Superior. If this project is carried out, the receipts of our railways will be increased and the quantity of products coming out from the West will also be increased. You will increase in every respect the volume of the trade of the railways, and that is what is desired. We shall then not have so much the cry: "Where are the cars? Where are the new cars that have been asked for in this House?" They will be out in the West doing their work instead of lying idle at the seaboard. And furthermore, much can be saved in additional rolling stock now required to be produced. It is, therefore, a sound policy for Canada, notwithstanding a large expenditure for railways, as quickly as she can to get this canal built so as to increase the receipts of her railways and save capital expenditures that would otherwise be required.
It has been stated that, with the enormous debt that we have upon our shoulders, this is no time to contemplate making any new expenditures. My friend the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), for whom I have a great respect, jocularly said that this project had been brought forward at a time when there was the prospect of an election. Two years ago Canada sent two Cabinet Ministers to Washington in an endeavour to get this matter referred to the International Waterways Commission. The present Prime Minister and the late Hon. Mr. Sifton, went there along with some officials, but nothing was done. But when the Western States arose in their strength and in their own interest on account of the produce of the farmers being unnecessarily taxed by high freight rates, demanded of Washington, that this matter be referred to the International Waterways Commission, then the matter was so referred. Two years ago a communication came from the United States, when no election was in sight. Canada dealt with that communication and suggested that engineers from both countries be appointed to prepare the proper and necessary questions of reference to the International Joint Commission. Each

country appointed an engineer; those engineers met and framed the questions that were frequently transmitted by the letter read by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid). Orders in Council were then passed authorizing the reference, and in that way the whole matter was, by Canada and by the United States, referred to the International Commission to investigate, and we shall soon have that report. But it is very surprising, listening to some of the remarks made in this House, to realize what an utter lack of information there is upon this important subject, and it was with the sole object of getting this matter from this International Commission by its report to the attention of the members through a committee, that this motion has been made.
Another objection has been made-"Oh there is an alternative route, the Georgian bay." There are two routes to the West, and I am not going to argue particularly in favour of one or the other. As the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) said, as long as we can get transportation through without breaking bulk to the head of the lakes, so that the products will not be charged as high as at present in getting them to the market, we are content; it makes no difference whether it is by the Georgian bay route or by this other route. But I remember the criticism of the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), which was to the effect that this project is, perhaps, not advisable. He did not say that it was not; but he went on to say that freight rates depend upon the return cargoes, and you must have the return cargoes. It is for that reason that I was endeavouring to accentuate the point that there were return cargoes, I refered in opening this matter to the boats going in and out of Manchester to take cargoes in and bring cargoes out. In this case, when this canal is opened up, there would be many .cities from which cargoes could be had, such as Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) said that I said nothing of the Canadian cities. I beg his pardon. I mentioned, "and the Ontario ports". We shall have all those places on the American side and on the Canadian side. Ontario is surrounded on the south by water; it is her boundary all the way until you get practically to Manitoba, and all the busy cities and towns of Ontario will have freight to send out and be able to receive freight from overseas. There is your return cargo to and from Canada; but the point is this,
48i
in answer to the hon. member for Marquette -he will also have his return cargo which is to-day going to and being received by the seaports of New York and Boston. WThy? Where do these goods go to? To New York? No, they go to Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit, Wisconsin, Indiana. Now we will have ocean tramp steamers coming into those upper lakes on account of that class of business and there will be no difficulty at all, after having brought their cargo in and discharging, in their making the short journey either to Chicago, Duluth, Port Arthur, or Fort William, and loading up with grain or any other agricultural products. Because of that we will have these return cargoes, and therefore it is that those who have given the matter the most consideration realize that the immediate construction of this waterway would be in the national interests. There is the further fact that we have spent millions on the Welland canal, which will be useless unless it is connected up with the Port of Montreal.
There are other reasons that could be urged by those who have studied the question of the Georgian Bay and the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence is primarily a navigation proposition. Secondly, it is a power proposition. The St. Lawrence river is the most remarkable river in the world so far as navigation is concerned. No other river in the world has such a steady constant flow. The St. Lawrence never varies in one year more than 1 [DOT] 2 feet. Nature has built immense reservoirs and dams like our inland lakes, which would have cost an enormous sum for man to build. The waters flowing from the different rivers, the Kaministiqua, the Nipigon, the White river, the Michipicoten, etc., settle down in the lakes to a clear blue water, not carrying any sediment. These settling works have already been constructed. The river never varies in the springtime. Compare that with the Ottawa river. We must stopthat rise and fall of 20 feet every year; then when we have done that, we will be able to say it may become a ship canal; it is a ship canal we are after, not a barge canal. Experience teaches us that ships will take short canals for long water stretches, but that they will not take long canals for the opposite. I cannot understand why hon. members representing the constituencies along the Ottawa river, especially those representing the city of Ottawa, are not in favour of this project. There will only be five locks in the St. Lawrence. Two of these locks must be

built as part of the Georgian Bay or Ottawa river system, to get into the lake St. Louis. Then you would be within six feet of the level of the lake of Two Mountains, which is an enlargement of the Ottawa river, which river here flows into lake St. Louis, which in turn is an enlargement of the St. Lawrence river. Then you could carry on with the Georgian Bay system, from these two locks already then built. I would have thought that any person desiring to see Ottawa become a seaport, to see the Ottawa river developed, to see even the Georgian Bay canal built, would feel that in so doing they were getting two-fifths of the benefit of the St. Lawrence system for their own canal. Those are the facts. I cannot understand any opposition to this project once it is properly understood.
If the International Joint Waterways Commission are dealing only with the St. Lawrence, let this whole question be referred to a committee of the House, and if the other scheme is preferable the House can throw this one out if it sees fit, and take on the other. But let us get the facts, and disseminate them, and then we will know what to do.
As to the question of cost as I said at the outset, we are hard up, we cannot afford to spend money; but if we are spending money at the present time and do not know it we should take that wasteful expenditure by the throat, and that is what we would be doing in this case. I made the assertion in the opening of my remarks, and I still maintain that it is true, that the United States and Canada are losing hundreds of millions of dollars by hot having this canal built. Mr. Julius H. Barnes, formerly president of the United States Grain Corporation, has shown that on the 4,000,000,000 grain^ product of the United States and Canada the producers are losing $200,000,000 annually, and that statement has not been controverted. Add to that the loss on the package freight, and-leaving aside the question of electric power-this project will pay on navigation and navigation alone. If that be so, why should we not pay annually sinking fund, and interest on the capital invested, particularly if it is only one-tenth of the amount that is wasted every year. We would not tolerate that waste if we knew it. Let us get the facts, and I am sure the people of this country will say: Hard-up as we are, we do not want to pay for this waste in freight rates, but would rather pay it straight to

the Federal treasury and have something for it.
With reference to the cost of development of power, the statement made by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) was, I believe, the statement of a New York engineer who was the consulting engineer of the water-power interests. That was the opposition we had in Montreal- the water-power interests. They are not anxious to see the further development of water-powers on the St. Lawrence river, and their policy was to make the cost as great as possible, but let me remind my hon. friend from Russell, who I am sure is aware of it, that the Parliament of Canada heretofore has had a proposition before it from gentlemen of New York State offering to build the canal at that point if they were given the power at the point of which he speaks. They would build the canal locks free of cost to either country if they were handed over the power-this power that we are told now was to cost at this one point, $550,000,000. That proposition nearly got through this House. It got through the New York State legislature. Then application was made to the courts of the United States to quash the whole incorporation of the American Company on the ground that it was ultra viras, that no private company could be given the rights of navigation by the state. This place where $550,000,000 was to be spent for power, we could have had built without it costing Canada anything, if we had seen fit. I do not know just what the $550,000,000 represents, whether it means complete water-power development, machinery and everything else. I dare say it does. I have been told that when you start in and develop water-power, your development cost is, say, $1, for the mere dams and so forth; but for your plant, your houses, your necessary machinery, the living quarters for the men who live there, moving pictures and so on, the cost is $100 to every $1. Probably that $550,000,000 includes all those items.
What I say is that as Canadians we should get to understand this question, just as our cousins to the south now understand it. The only opposition they have over there is the selfish opposition of part of New York State, and of the Buffalo and Erie Canal interests. The people over there now see the benefit of this canal, and let us try to see what benefit there is in it for us also. I have no objection to seeing also what the cost is. Let us

know exactly what it will cost. The hon. member for Quebec said, let us also refer to the committee at the same time the question of getting the grain to Quebec as well as to Montreal all rail. Be it so. He will find that by rail it is ten times the cost it would be by water. Let all these questions be referred to the committee; let us get the facts, and then we can act intelligently. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) was good enough to say that if I withdrew this resolution he would undertake to see that this whole question was referred to one of the standing committees of the House. A committee which I did not know existed at the time I drafted the resolution, namely, the Committee on Forests, Waterways and Water-powers. I should be glad to see the matter go before that committee. There is nothing much that can be done until we have the evidence and the report from the International Joint Commission as a basis to work upon. The report should be presented about the second Tuesday in April next, and under the circumstances I gladly avail myself of the undertaking of the Minister of Railways and withdraw the motion on this understanding.
Motion withdrawn.



THE CATTLE EMBARGO

[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Smith, that in the opinion of this House it would not be in the interests of Canada should the Government of Great Britain remove the embargo upon cattle going into the United Kingdom, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Pedlow.
Mr. MICHAEL STEELE (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock yesterday I moved the adjournment of this debate, and it is rather a coincidence that I should now be tempted again at six o'clock to move its further adjournment. However, I shall not do so, although it is practically time for recess. I shall conclude the remarks which I was addressing to the House yesterday. I was speaking at the time of adjournment on the visit of the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario to Britain in connection with the removal of the embargo, and had expressed the opinion that that visit, instead of assisting in the endeavour to secure its removal, would on the contrary have a prejudicial effect by creating a feeling of resentment on the part of the British people against this country by reason of the interference of a provincial minister in a
matter purely within the decision of the British people. That my opinion is well founded is obvious from the following comment which I shall quote from the London "Morning Post" as reported in the press:
The London Morning Post says: "Mr. Doherty will associate himself with political action here, a proceeding so obviously improper that we can only suppose that the Minister for Ontario has not understood to what he is being committed."
I think we shall all agree that the "Morning Post" has sized up that minister very accurately. Mr. Doherty has said that he is in Great Britain to-day, not as the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario but in his capacity as a private citizen of Canada. He is evidently endeavouring to play the dual role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. When he is in Ontario he is the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, and when he goes to Great Britain on a message relating to agriculture he is a private citizen. I do not think that it will tend to predispose the British people in favour of the removal of this embargo, when a private citizen of Canada goes there to give them counsel gratuitously as to what they ought to do. This has been made a political question. The Labour people have taken it up and are using the removal of the embargo as an argument against the government of Great Britain. What is the reason they give for its removal? Is it because they are anxious to assist the British agriculturists? Not at all. Is it because they want to assist Canadian exporters? By no means. What they want is cheap meat, and it does seem to me that this is not a very strong reason why the Canadian people should desire the removal of the embargo. If the embargo were removed in accordance with the wishes of the Labour people of Britain, it would be removed not only from Canadian cattle but from cattle coming from Argentine and Australia, and it would be hopeless for the Canadian people to think of competing in the British market with the cattle from those countries. The Canadian farmer is in a much better position to-day than he would be in with the removal of the embargo from the cattle of all countries, because, being nearer Great Britain than any of those cattle-producing countries, he can ship his cattle there alive much more freely and expeditiously and to better advantage than the farmers of Australia or the Argentine. We therefore have a sort of preference in the British market in that respect. I

am afraid that the only reputation which the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario will gain in the Old Country will be one that will not he very favourable. He will go down in British history, I fear, by the appellation of "Meddlesome Manning," meddling with things with which he has no business and no concern, and ignoring the proper channel through which this *question should be taken up, namely, the Federal Government. I was struck with the statement yesterday of the Minister *of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) to the effect that of a million cattle annually passing inspection at our abattoirs less than ten per cent are fitted for export to the British Islands to compete there with the cattle of - Australia and Argentine. If that is so, then I think it should be a stimulus to the Canadian farmer to improve his cattle still further. It may be difficult for the farmers of the West to do this, but certainly the farmers of Ontario should be urged, and urged very strongly, to finish their cattle properly so that they can send them in a condition that will secure the approval of the British people. What we need in the livestock industry in Ontario is more intense feeding. That seems to be the principle which the British farmer has followed for years, and it is a good one for the Ontario farmer to emulate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move an amendment to the amendment to the following effect:
That all the words after the word "that" in the original motion, and all the words of the proposed amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:	"This House
approves and supports the policy of the Government and of previous Governments of Canada in protesting against the implication of disease in Canadian cattle by reason of the maintenance of the embargo thereon by the British Government."
This Government has done all that it possibly can to secure the removal of the embargo. It received a promise from the British Minister of Agriculture in 1917 that the embargo would be removed, and if that promise has not been carried out it is not the fault of the Government. Seconded by the hon. member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Best, I beg to move the amendment to the amendment which I have iust read.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I do not intend to deal at any great length 	I
with this subject at the present time for the reason that I was not quite ready to do so to-night owing to an understanding I had that it should not be discussed until Monday's sitting, which would have given me more leisure to make further investigation into the matter. There is now before the House the resolution of the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith), the amendment moved by myself, and the sub-amendment of the member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). During the time that has elapsed, and during the discussion that has ensued, since I placed my amendment before the House, there seems to have arisen in the minds of some hon. gentlemen a misapprehension as to my motives and as to the aims of my amendment. Let me say distinctly at the outset, Sir, and so that there may be no room whatever left for any misunderstanding, that there was no intention on my part to dictate to the Imperial Government as to the course they should pursue in domestic affairs, and I do not think that any person reading my amendment could come to that conclusion. I moved that amendment at almost the conclusion of the debate on the resolution, and it seemed to me that it Would be rather unfortunate, after so much discussion on an important subject of this kind, if the resolution should be withdrawn without apparently accomplishing anything beyond affording hon. members an opportunity to express their opinions. I therefore briefly outlined my reasons for taking the course I did, and moved my amendment, which reads as follows :
. That all the words after the word "House" m the resolution be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof: "The Government of Canada should make a strong protest against the reasons assigned by the British Government that Canadian cattle are diseased as an excuse for placing an embargo on Canadian live cattle going into the United Kingdom".
I do not think that amendment warrants the conclusion that some hon. gentlemen seem to have reached. It certainly was not my intention either to interfere in the pending elections in the Old Country, or to attempt to dictate to the Imperial Government as to what course they should pursue in domestic affairs. But, Sir, we have a grievance that we should voice; and the fact that we have no right to interefere in Imperial affairs does not debar us from protesting to the Imperial Government, if we have a grievance, just as we would protest to the authorities of any other country, had we cause to do so. I do not think that we in Canada should hesitate


in fact I do not think the Imperial Government expects us to do so-to express our disapproval of Imperial action on this question. As a matter of fact, during the whole period covering the years that have passed from 1892 down to the present time, successive Canadian Governments have protested against the unfairness of this embargo on our cattle. In the brief interval since yesterday I have hurriedly read the records and find that government after government have protested against, not the embargo only but the unfairness of the reasons assigned or implied for its imposition. As a matter of fact, there is no room for concluding that, in the early stages at least, the reasons for the embargo were merely implied; they wer specifically stated. I read that many efforts were made during all these years. And what has been accomplished, Mr. ' Speaker? As far as I can learn, practically nothing. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister says that a promise was at last extracted from the British Government. But for what purpose? Simply that this embargo would be removed after the war.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in his judgment we are still at war? I know that the great country to the south of us claim that they are still at war with Germany ; and certainly their refusal to repeal certain war-time provisions against the enemy would lead to that conclusion. But so far as Canada is concerned the war ceased on July 9, 1919, and since then the Imperial authorities, one would think, have had ample time to implement their promise.
Now, Sir, I have been challenged by some hon. members, among them my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), to adduce facts in support of my resolution, and that hon. gentleman has stated that if I can produce the data on which I base the conclusions arrived at in my amendment to the resolution he will support me. Therefore I should like to call the attention of the House to some extracts from Sessional Papers, Vol. XXVI, published in 1893. I find away back in that year two unfortunate cows were the beginning of all this trouble, and that from that date down to the present time various governments, both Conservative and Liberal-and I suppose Unionist, too, when it had time to spare for work of that kind-have been dealing with the subject, but without much result. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) informed us the other day that even as late
as a year ago an attempt had been made by the Government to have this embargo removed, but practically nothing was accomplished. I find in a Sessional Paper, dated London, October 24, 1892, the following cablegram:
Two animals, one a cow, ex steamer "Monk-seaton" or "Huronia" at Dundee and Fifeshire slaughtered suspicion pleuro-pneumonia. Postmortem indication very similar pleuro but no decision yet arrived at. Have seen authorities and pointed out impossibility disease being pleuro. Make immediate inquiry where all animals came from. Most important to prove no contact with American cattle and no disease in locality stock came from.
(Signed) Tufper.
From that time on a voluminous correspondence ensued, and Sir Charles Tupper refers again to these unfortunate cows. He writes:
I cannot help thinking it a pity, in any circumstances, that the two "old worn-oiit" cows, to which Dr. McEachran refers as having been shipped by the "Huronia", should ever have been allowed to come over, and I am strongly of the opinion that we should follow the practice of the Danes, who rigorously keep back any animal that is likely to cause suspicion, or require to be examined on landing in this country. We cannot be too careful, in view of tlie difficulties, trouble, expense and anxiety which any case like that at present under consideration causes, and I shall be glad if you will give the matter your attention.
I remain, yours faithfully,
Charles Tupper.
Nothing apparently was accomplished, although protests continued to be made by the Dominion Government. In that respect, you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I was not finding fault with the Government for not attempting to get the embargo removed, but I was rather impatient at their failure to produce something of value as the result of their efforts. The Edinburgh Scotsman of 5th November, 1892, published the following:
The urgent representations of the great bodies of English agriculturalists have prevailed at the board of agriculture, and Canada is to be deprived of the privilege she has up till now enjoyed of free trade with this country in live cattle. Mr. Herbert Gardner has, at any rate, waited to hear both sides before coming to this decision. The Canadian authorities have, I believe, been .most diligent in their efforts to rebut the suspicion cast upon the Dominion cattle.
The week following that an influential deputation waited upon the president of the British Board of Agriculture in London. The Duke of Westminster in introducing the deputation said:
Mr. Gardner would not have been surprised that they had requested to have this interview with him, on account of the very deep and well founded alarm that had been spread all over


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) is, as I heard it read, in the terms suggested by myself yesterday to be substituted for that of the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow). But I understood my hon. friend to take exception to that as not being his amendment, and consequently the sub-amendment became necessary. Therefore, as I understand the matter now, it is'the sub-amendment that is before the House.
The only word that I rise to add on this occasion is that I do not think this subject should be seized upon to endeavour to create in Canada a feeling against Great Britain. The hon. member for Red Deer

(Mr. Clark) put the whole subject in a very concise and, as I thought, fair and proper way in the speech he made yesterday. His words, associated with those of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) expressed what I think ought to be the attitude of Parliament towards this question at this time. It would be quite wrong for Parliament to affirm that the British Government assign, as a reason for the maintenance of this embargo, disease amongst Canadian cattle. The British Government, when the embargo was put on some thirty years ago, did so, assigning as a reason then, just as quoted by the hon. member for South Renfrew, that there was suspicion of disease in respect of at least one animal-it may be that my hon. friend is correct in describing the case as that of "two unfortunate cows"
.-in a Canadian shipment, which animal, I understand, had actually come from the United States. It is a fact that now they assign, as at least one of the grounds, if not the only one, for the maintenance of the embargo, the fear that, although our herds to-day are free and have, for many years, been free of disease, nevertheless, contagion may come to their stock through Canada from importations from the United States or otherwise, or from disease subsequently recurring within the herds of Canada. They do not at all assert, nor even venture to suspect, that the herds of this country to-day are not wholly free from disease. Consequently, it would be very unfair on the part of this Parliament to pass an amendment embodying an assertion on our part of something that was not strictly a fact.
But inasmuch as the original embargo arose from suspicion of disease, if not disease on the part of an animal that came with a Canadian herd, the continuance of an embargo, arising from that source, we have claimed, constitutes an implication against Canadian stock. I must say that there are many who think-and from this opinion I am not free myself-that the continuation of this policy in Great Britain is really a measure of protection established by the British Government for the benefit of cattle raisers in the old land. It is not the only measure that has protective effect which the British Government now enforces, to which they have had resort in recent years, and it has often occurred to me that the public opinion that they have created there-and possibly it is better described as a public prejudice-against protective duties, is at the
[Mr. Meighen.J
bottom of the disposition on the part of the Government and Parliament there to resort to other means to get the same result. Consequently, we feel that as they are able to get that result by other means, those other means if any, should be adopted, and they should not continue an embargo that arose from a cause that they know has now passed away.
If they feel that, as was expressed by ' the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), they should continue the embargo for the reason that they want to be doubly sure that there will be no recurrence of disease or no admission of diseased cattle to Canada and, consequently, transmission of the contagion to British cattle, then they should take such appropriate action as will remove the original imputation that has all along attended this embargo and place their policy upon another basis. I think I have expressed with some care and, I believe, exactly, the position that governments in Canada have taken for some time, and this finds expression as well in the sub-amendment moved by the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele). It seems to me that the passing of that sub-amendment is consonant with the historic policy of Canada, with the dignity of Canada and also with the continuous practice of this country to respect the rights of the British Parliament within their own domain. Therefore, I hope the House will accept, as it stands, the sub-amendment, and if possible, that there will be no division of opinion [DOT] upon it.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the sub-amendment is a vote of confidence in the present Government and in preceding Governments for having protested against this embargo. I am not aware that anybody has attacked the attitude of the present Government or of any preceding Government on that point. Therefore, I do not think the present Government or the preceding government, of which I had the honour to be a member, needs any whitewashing of that kind; but I do not think it does any harm and I have no objection to offer to it.


Mr. PROULX:: Will this sub-amendment be communicated to the Imperial Government?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I will see that
the resolution as passed by Parliament is duly transmitted to the High Commissioner, as it is through his office that the representations of this country have been made.
"MARCH 10, 192]


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin) :: I just wish tc say that the reason why I second and shall support the sub-amendment is this: I believe that the present Government and all former governments in the last 20 or 25 years have tried to do all they could to have the cattle embargo removed. The reason I am opposed to the original resolution is that I think we have no right to dictate to the British Government what shall be done in the matter of the embargo; it is their business, not ours. The reason I am opposed to the amendment is because the British Government, as I think every hon. member is aware, are not claiming that there is disease among our cattle at the present time. While the embargo was put on for that reason in the first place, I fully agree with my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that we have no authority whatever for saying that the British Government claim now that there is disease among our cattle. We cannot go by newspaper reports and by what people say. I believe that the newspapers and the amendment to the resolution are simply doing harm to our cattle, because the amendment practically says that the British Government is keeping the embargo on because there is disease among our cattle. I repeat, we have no right to dictate to the British Government what laws they shall make, and I do not want the British Government or the government of any other country to dictate to us. I certainly shall not vote to dictate to them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not see that very much is to be gained either by the amendment or by the sub-amendment. There is one thing, however, that I wish to say to the Prime Minister, and to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and that is, there is no record of the British Government ever having changed the stand they took on the question of pleuro-pneumonia. They gave as a reason for putting on the embargo, that there was disease among our cattle, and that reason is of record. Now if there is a change in their attitude, that also should be a matter of record with some government of this country, and until the Prime Minister or some other member of the Government can show that the British Government have receded from the stand they took some twenty or more years ago, and that that change of attitude is a matter of record in this country, there is no use talking about it any more. To say that
there has been a change of attitude on the part of the British Government without being able to produce any evidence to that effect, is as futile as it would be for me to stand up in court and say: Such and such is the, decision of the courts on the records, but a case has been decided somewhere that has not been reported, and I ask your lordships to follow that unreported case. Of course, their lordships would tell me at once that they could pay no attention to that unreported case, but would have to follow the reports of the law as they found them. I submit to the Government, and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture, that we have no record that the British Government have changed their minds, and until they have reversed what they unjustly said about our stock, we cannot very well say that the matter has been fully cleared up.
I think there is very litle difference, Mr. Speaker, between the amendment and the sub-amendment. I am sorry that even in these little things there must be fault found and that the Government has apparently reached the conclusion that no good thing can come out of Nazareth at all. They would not suggest to my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) that he change a word or two in his amendment, but if there was any credit to be gained from action in this matter, his resolution had to be wiped out entirely and one introduced from the other side.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman is
quite mistaken. I suggested yesterday, and even sent across the floor, this very amendment, but when it appeared to-day as the amendment of the hon. member for South Renfrew, he repudiated it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The amendment was not made. My right hon. friend is not fair. What got into the report and into the records was a bungle and a mistake. As I understand it, and as will appear by Hansard to-morrow, the thing was simply written on the back of some paper, and the officer of the House who was taking this thing down just took it as if it was all right. The fact of the matter is simply this. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) was afraid that the hon. member for South Renfrew would get some kudos out of this thing, so he had to come forward with an amendment of his own. The idea in both is exactly the same; the difference is only a word or two one way or the other, and if we get any results from our action in this matter, I

say that the hon. member for South Renfrew is entitled to the whole credit.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a mis-statement.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would rule that the hon. member has the right to correct a mis-statement if one has been made.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I understood the Prime Minister a few moments ago to make the statement that the amendment apparently to be accepted by the House was sent across the floor of the House yesterday evening. If by that he meant that the amendment was sent to myself, his statement is not correct. The Prime Minister, I am sure, does not wish to be unfair. He may have been under the impression that it was delivered to me, but the first time I saw the amendment in its present form was to-night after the House rose at six o'clock.


Georges Henri Boivin: I might say that I had the privilege of occupying the Chair at the time, and I remember distinctly that the amendment was sent across the floor of the House, but it was only sent as far as the front benches on the Opposition side, and read by some hon. member sitting there. I am quite sure it did not reach the hon. member for South Renfrew.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I merely rise to protest against the statement that has been repeatedly made during this debate that there is an embargo against Canadian cattle entering the ports of Great Britain. The embargo is not against Canadian cattle, but against cattle from all countries. The word "Canada" does not appear in it at all, and I am surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite and some hon. members on this side of the House have discussed the embargo as though it were an enactment of the British Government directed particularly against Canadian cattle. When it was first imposed that was the case. In November, 1902, the British Board of Agriculture had the right to prohibit the importation into Great Britain of cattle from any country providing disease was suspected to exist in the herds of that country. In 1904 the Acts of the British Parliament were consolidated, and what was then known as the Diseases of Animals Act came into effect. In 1896, on the 20th of July, the Act that is at present in force in Great Britain came into operation, and that Act applies to all countries. The excep-

tion that is to-day being taken might well have been justified with regard to British legislation from November, 1902, up to July 20th, 1906, but no exception can be taken to the action of the British Government in passing the Act of 1896 as directed solely against Canadian cattle, and I was 'surprised to find in the press again to-day a'reference by one of the provincial Prime Ministers of this country to the matter. We have now three, if not four, of them on record protesting against the embargo on Canadian cattle which has been imposed by the British Government. In order to clear the minds of some of those who apparently are labouring under a misapprehension, I will read section 26 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. The Board of Agriculture were given certain authority under this Act. Section 26 reads:
In relation to foreign animals other than those the landing whereof is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture-
This is the class we were in at that time. Canadian cattle were prohibited in November, 1902, from entry into the interior and were compelled to be slaughtered at the port of landing.
-and other than those brought from the Channel .Islands or the Isle of Man, if and so long as the Board are satisfied with respect to any country out of the United Kingdom or any specified part of such country that the laws thereof relating to the importation and exportation of animals, and to the prevention of the introduction or spreading of disease, and the general sanitary condition of animals therein, are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals, the Board, by order, shall allow animals or any specified kind of animals, brought from that country or such part to be landed without being subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act as to slaughter or quarantine, and may for that purpose alter or add to those provisions as the case may require.
Provided that the admission of such animals sail be subject to such regulations as to the route by which the animals are conveyed to this country, quarantine or otherwise, as the Board of Agriculture may by order direct.
The Board of Agriculture were given a certain latitude to exercise their own judgment in matters of this kind. But as I have already pointed out, on the 20th of July, 1896, the British Government passed an Act, which reads:
An Act to amend the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894 (20th July, 1896). Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same ; as follows:
1. (1) For section twenty-four of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall be substituted the following section, namely;

Now, I would ask the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) to pay particular attention to this provision, which covers cattle such as were taken in from Holland for exhibition purposes.
The provisions set forth in part 1 (slaughter at port of landing-) of the Third Schedule to this Act shall apply to all foreign animals other than-
(a)	foreign animals the landing of which is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture ; and
(b)	foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes,-
The very class of cattle alluded to by the hon. member for South Renfrew.
-and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board, subject to the provisions of Part 2 (quarantine) of the Third Schedule to this Act.
(2) Section twenty-six of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, is hereby repealed.
Now, this is the law in Great Britain, and the name of Canada is nowhere to be found in it; is not even considered in the matter. The Act is one to protect the herds of Great Britain from the possibility of the introduction of disease, and it has been consistently maintained by the British Government from that day to the present; and the governments of this country, both present and past, have been continually taking this matter up, as they were justified in doing. I have no doubt that they did everything possible to induce the British Government to consider the matter favourably from our standpoint, and in fact I know that such has been the case. In view of this fact, therefore, I think it is very unfair and, indeed, undignified on the part of any individual or Provincial Government of this country to do anything or take any action that would have the effect of embarrassing the Government of Great Britain at the present time. Prom the character of the agitation that is now on foot, and the meetings that are being held, it is obvious what the object is. Do you believe that this agitation to have the embargo removed is due to any consideration for the welfare of this country? Is it due to an honest desire to free our cattle from a supposed stigma? If that were the case I think that different methods would be adopted and the matter would be properly urged upon the British authorities. But we had the spectacle of the Minister of Finance of Ontario addressing a meeting in Western Ontario less than two weeks ago, when he pointed out what was likely to happen, and said that if the embargo were lifted the full credit would go to the Hon. Manning Doherty. The Provincial Minister
of Agriculture. He endeavours to forestall a possible event in the future and to appropriate to a member of the Ontario Government the full credit therefor. I think that the attitude of those hon. gentlemen who are even now anticipating the removal of the embargo and trying to claim in advance full credit for it shows exactly what their whole object is. Now, I do not desire to prolong this discussion. I expressed myself yesterday on the subject, and I rise on this occasion only to remove the impression, if it still remains in the minds of any hon. gentleman, that the British authorities have an embargo on the cattle of this country exclusively on account of disease in our herds. In 1902 an embargo was placed on Canadian cattle because of the belief that there was disease, but since 1896 an embargo has rested on all cattle from foreign countries, and it has been purely a protective policy on the part of the Government of Great Britain, not only to protect the livestock interests of that country but also to safeguard them from the introduction of disease into their herds from other countries.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) :: The hon. member who has taken his seat (Mr. Sutherland) seems to see a difference between the attitude of the British Government before and after 1896. I understand that the British Government at the present time does not say that Canadian cattle are diseased. They say in effect: Your means of quarantine, your quarantine organization at the border, is so far from perfect that a stray sick animal from the United States can get in, and that is the reason this law has to apply to you as well as to other parts of the world. I think it has been shown us in the very excellent speech of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) that our quarantine organization is of the best, when of three million animals slaughtered in the Old Country not one showed the diseases complained of. Now, I should like this matter to be treated not as a party question. The Government is doing right, as other governments have done in the past, in protesting against the implication that our cattle are diseased, and if we can hold up their hands in that regard as the united representatives of a united people, who do not want this slander to be perpetuated on any ground whatsoever, whether against our cattle or against our quarantine organization, then I say that we should make our action as non-partisan

as possible and should speak with a united voice against this wrong. I am not going to speak at any length, but I have the honour to represent in this House one of the most purely agricultural counties in the whole Dominion of Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -a county which is renowned for its splendid cattle. There is no better butter made in the world than in the hills of the Eastern Townships.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Let me repeat that statement. I am always moderate in all my statements, and this is not by any means extravagant. There is no better butter made than in my county. I shall make no comparisons to hurt any one's feelings and so I leave it at that. I think we should speak in a united manner on this question and support the hands of the Government, who are only following the good precedent established by previous governments in urging that this embargo upon cattle coming from this country, where no disease exists and where the quarantine organization is as good as it is, shall be removed.


Edmond Proulx: (Prescott): My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) objects to the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario taking part in the protest against the embargo. Well, I think that the Government should invite the various provincial governments to help them in their endeavour to have the embargo removed. Even if the embargo does not rest on Canadian cattle only, but on the cattle of all countries, the fact remains that our cattle are under that disadvantage. It has been said that the embargo is not directed against Canadian cattle in particular but is also enforced against cattle coming from other countries. Nevertheless, we have been asking the British Government for many years to remove it but without success. If we now obtain the cooperation of the various Provincial Governments in Canada we will stand a better chance of succeeding. The other day the Legislature of Quebec passed a resolution in favour of the removal of thfe embargo, and I think the Legislature of Alberta adopted a similar course. The Ontario Government is also taking an active part in the movement to have the embargo removed. The Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Ontario, a very active and very capable man, is at present interesting him-
self to that end. He may perhaps carry the agitation into Great Britain itself, but we know that all these obstacles to trade are only removed after a strong agitation; and I would have no objection to the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario conducting a little agitation along the desired lines if it is felt to be necessary. If the embargo is removed I have not the least objection to giving some of the credit to the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario, as well as to the Ministers of Agriculture for the other provinces. I think the Federal Government should invite the co-operation of the various Provincial Governments, and that a united demand should go from Canada insisting on the removal of this embargo. If that were done I think there would be a greater chance of the embargo being lifted and thus removing an injustice which has existed for so many years. The Prime Minister said it seemed to him, and I must admit the same idea has occurred to me, that the embargo is retained more as a protective measure than as a safeguard against the introduction of disease. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) and my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) have proved to our entire satisfaction that the disease complained of does not exist 'among Canadian herds. Under all the circumstances if the embargo is removed I will accord a certain amount of credit to the Federal Government, and I would be ready likewise to give credit to some of the Provincial Governments.
Sub-amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Mr. Speaker, as I have a motion on the Order Paper bearing on the question of the embargo on Canadian cattle and as the vote just taken meets with my views, I would ask permission t<i drop the motion standing in my name.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the
resolution proposed by the hon. member i3 reached it will be dropped.



TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the motion calling for a copy of the new Treaty of Commerce between France and Canada-Mr. Archam-bault.
Arthur Meighen: I would ask that the motion stand, and that it continue to stand, should I not be here when it is called, until such time as the Govern-

ment feel justified in bringing the Treaty down.


William Stevens Fielding: Does that mean that the Treaty is not completed?


Arthur Meighen: I inquired of the Minister of Trade and Commerce two or three days ago and I gathered from him that France, the other party to the Treaty, had not advanced far enough with the ratification of the Treaty to warrant us in bringing it down.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the motion calling for:
A copy of all letters, reports exchanged between engineers and officers of the Canadian National Railways concerning the demolition of the round house at St. Foy, opposite the Quebec bridge, the removal from that place of a mechanical staff to a place called Charny on the other side of the St. Lawrence river; the proposed demolition of the station on the main line of the Transcontinental Railway at Quebec bridge.-Mr. Parent.
Arthur Meighen: I ask that this motion
stand. It appears to call for correspondence between officers of the Canadian National Railways and some other people about some Canadian National railway business. The Government would not have that correspondence.


Mr. CAHILL:: If the Government have
not the information I presume they could obtain it?


Arthur Meighen: The Government could not get it any more than the hon. member could.


Georges Henri Boivin: The resolution stands.



UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the Order in Council of July 9, 1920, appointing the Honourable Sir Thomas White as an arbitrator to value the stock of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, any subsequent Orders in Council having reference to this matter, and for all correspondence between the Government and the Honourable Sir Thomas White respecting such appointment.-Mr. Mackenzie King.	,

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for the following proposed resolution-
That, in the opinion of this House, an up-to-date semi-weekly steamer's service should be established under Government control, between the various harbours of Magdalen Islands, P.Q., and the mainland.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped. My reason
for dropping this resolution is that since
I gave notice of it, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has provided the Magdalen Islands with an excellent service.
On the Order "Notices of Motion:"


Mr. ROBB:: Before you leave the Notices of Motion, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that they are not numbered the same in the English and French editions, which leads to confusion.	,


Georges Henri Boivin: I will call the attention of the proper officer to that fact and the necessary correction will be made in the Votes and Proceedings tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONALS DEFINITION ACT ,

[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) for the second reading of Bill No. 17, to define Canadian nationals, adjourned from March 8.
Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that this debate was adjourned by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McM-aster).


Andrew Ross McMaster: I merely adjourned the debate, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of getting over an impasse, and not with any intention of contributing to it until I had listened with the same attention as I always do to the extensive remarks


Mr. BUREAU:: The more extensive remarks.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -to the more extensive remarks of the right hon. Minister of Justice.
Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: I beg to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this Bill is a reprint of the original Bill as proposed to be amended in Committee of the whole House. Mr. Doherty moves to amend clause one by striking out all the words after the word "persons" in the first line and substituting the following words:
-shall be deemed to be Canadian nationals, viz:-	.
(a)	Any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act, Chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1910, as heretofore amended.
(b)	The wife of any such citizen.
(c)	Any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth.
Shall the amendment carry?


Jacques Bureau: May I call the attention of the committee to the French version of the Bill? If I understood the explanation of the Minister of Justice, this "Canadian national" was originally baptized in French at the League of Nations, and then was translated into English. I see that the English version was first used before this House and then translated into French, and that translation does not correspond with the original term which was born at the League of Nations. Of course, this is a matter that cannot very well be left to the translators, as, if so, it generally brings confusion later on. In order that the English version which I have in my hand should correspond with the French version, I would first ask the Minister of Justice if he would not consider it advisable that section one instead of reading "The following persons shall be deemed to be," should read, "The following persons shall be Canadian nationals"? For, after all, we make them Canadian nationals, and we do not want to have anything equivocal about their status. Therefore in the latter form it would correspond with the French version, "Sont reputees ressortissantes du Canada les personnes suivantes, savoir."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would have no objection to accepting the modification. I may explain that instead of declaring that certain persons are British subjects, or that certain persons are Canadian nationals -which, I am prepared to admit, seems to be the more natural and more direct expression-it seems for a very long time past to have been the practice to say that certain persons "shall be deemed to be" etc. In the draft as it was originally before the Jlouse the words "the following persons are Canadian nationals" were used. I see no objection to accepting the definition, if the hon. gentleman thinks it is important. I believe the meaning is absolutely the same. But if we are going to modify it, I would rather say "the following persons are Canadian nationals," than "the following persons shall be Canadians nationals."


Jacques Bureau: That is better.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg therefore to move that section one, as now before the committee, be amended by substituting the word "are" for the words "shall be deemed to be."


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Doherty moves to amend section one, as proposed to be amended, by striking out the words "shall
[The Chairman.]
be deemed to be" and replacing them by the word "are." Shall the sub-amendment carry?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think we might just as well deal with the French version at the same time.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move to amend subsection one in the French version by substituting the words "sont ressortissantes" for the words "sont reputees ressortissantes."
M. le PRESIDENT: M. Doherty propose que la premiere clause du Bill 17, version frangaise, spit amendee en remplagant les mots "sont reputees ressortissantes" par les mots "sont ressortissantes."


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to further amend that same section by striking out the words "les personnes suivantes, savoir:" so the section would read: "Sont ressortissants du Canada."


William Stevens Fielding: Is there such a thing now as a Canadian national? Is it right to say, "the following persons are Canadian nationals," or do we not by this Bill make them so? It is a very fine distinction ; I merely call the hon. gentleman's attention to it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that both
things are true. There does exist to-day such a thing as a Canadian national; if there does not, then all those who are proud of the fact that they are Canadians have been attaching to themselves a designation that means nothing. It is equally true that this Act, speaking the day it is passed, declares the fact to exist that certain persons are Canadian nationals. The moment this Bill is passed-whether by virtue of this law or by virtue of any anterior thing is immaterial-these people are Canadian nationals.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The present tense is used in the expectation that the Bill will pass. If the Bill does not pass, then anything provided in it is of no avail. I take it, therefore, looking at the matter from the purely legal aspect, that it is correct to use the present tense.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right. The Bill speaks the moment it is passed; until that moment it says nothing.


Mr. MORPHY:: If there is no such thing as a Canadian national, how can it be said, as set forth in subsection (c) of sec-

tion 1, that any person born out of Canada "whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth," shall be a Canadian national?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that the verb "was" as used there has in mind the fact that we are speaking of a person who will be born in the future. The reference is to any person whose father "was" a Canadian national when that person was born.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: But there is no such thing as a Canadian national.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman does not suppose there are going to be no children born in the future; that our Canadian nationals are all going to be barren?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Some of them are barons.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But not barren. I am really puzzled to know how to make it any clearer. Perhaps my hon. friend will suggest a method.


Mr. CANNON:: Prior to the introduction of this Bill was there any correspondence on the subject between the Canadian Government and the British Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that this Bill is a very important one in that it gives to Canadian citizens what might be called a separate status from that of a British subject. Has the Government in any way, shape or form conferred with the British authorities, formally or informally, with regard to this measure?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks that this Bill modifies to the extent of one iota the status of any of us as British subjects. It did not seem to the Government necessary to ask the permission of the British Government-which, I am sure, would not have had the slightest objection-how we ought to define a Canadian, still leaving that Canadian as a British subject just where he was before. I do not see how the hon. gentleman could regard that as necessary.


William Findlay Maclean: Will
this Bill involve any change in the classification of the census returns?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know that there has been in the past any heading in the census returns specifying people as being or not being Canadian nationals.


William Findlay Maclean: But do we specify Canadians now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not the census returns before me, but I am under the impression that people are classified according to the origin of their ancestors. I am not quite certain whether there is a column which classifies people as Canadians.	.


William Findlay Maclean: Then it is high time we had some definition of that kind. In our documents we do not recognize a man as a Canadian; he is distributed here and there and all over.


Mr. COPP:: That is for election purposes.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps so; I have nothing to say on that. But our statutes, our documents and our official returns seem to go out of the way to avoid defining a Canadian. I had thought that this was the beginning of legislation in that direction.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hope it is.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope we shall soon have legislation of that kind so that it will be established here, in our documents and otherwise, as well as among all other nations, that there is such a thing as a Canadian. I do not ask for any amendment just now in that direction, but I hope that the Minister of Justice and the Government generally will do what they can to see that a Canadian is at least .recognized on his own statute book; for he has not been so recognized in the past. When I say that I speak for the people of all the provinces. A recognition in our statutes, public documents, etc., of what a Canadian is, would be a further step towards the unification of the people of this country.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I endorse the view of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean). It is because I think it is a step in that direction that I heartily support the Bill. I was sorry I was not here when the second reading was moved.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The Minister spoke
about trying to make clear subsection (t' of section 1, which provides that any person, born out of Canada "whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth" shall be deemed to be a Canadian national. That language imports the idea that there was such a thing as a Canadian national prior to the passing of this Bill. I take it from the minister that there is no such thing until this Bill is passed, so that a boy or girl born ten years



ago or five days ago could not say that his or her father was a Canadian national at the time of that child's birth, because there was no such thing then. If this is intended to apply after the Bill is passed and assented to, I see two things. The provision that "Any person born out of Canada whose father is a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth," will apply to the future; it does not cover the past. Therefore, the clause is worthy of a little consideration, when we are taking what I conceive to be a rather important step in defining Canadian nationality. I quite agree with the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the hon. member for East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe), in their desire, which I apprehend is the desire of the whole House, so to define Canadian nationality that it will appear in everything Canadian from this time forward.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not a lawyer, but I say that the original draft of the Bill was more to the point and to the argument we are now making, that is, if the words "shall be deemed to be" are in the Bill. I have seen in the Statutes, especially in past practice, a good many clauses where that term is constantly used. If we are creating a new thing and making a new departure here to-day, beginning to establish and recognize at this late hour a Canadian national, the most emphatic way of asserting it is to put in those Vfery words: "shall be deemed to be." I will not press that for the moment on the Minister of Justice; but'I think, when he consults his law officers and the practice heretofore in our statute books, he will find that the term "shall be deemed to be" as it was first read in this chamber this evening, is not only more explicit, but announces the beginning of a new condition of affairs, and we are now beginning to define what a Canadian national is. It will be another landmark in the creation of Canadian nationality.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the Minister of Justice has quite caught the point raised by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). Let me state a case. Twenty years ago a British subject residing in Ontario moved his family across to the United States, and a year later a son was born to them. That son to-day is nineteen years of age. Does he become a Canadian national under this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The minister thinks he does.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am quite sure.


William Stevens Fielding: The clause reads:
Any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth.
That person was born nineteen years ago. The hon. member for North Perth says-and I agree with him there-that there was then no such thing as a Canadian national, and, therefore, that does not bring the son nineteen years of age today and residing in Buffalo, within this Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Does my hon. friend contend that the original drafting would convey the intention he wishes to see conveyed?


William Stevens Fielding: I rather thought the expression "shall be deemed to be" was a better one, but that was objected to, and apparently with good reasons. My objection goes to the root of the whole business. I think it is nonsense.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I rose hoping to be in agreement with my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) , but unfortunately his last statement makes that impossible. I am disposed to think, as suggested by the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy), that the definition as it is in the Bill, is not wide enough to cover a person born before the passing of this measure, but I think we can find a form of words that will produce that result by letting the present clause stand as it is, but by adding to it in this way.
(c)	Any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth, or with regard to a person born before the passing of this Act whose father at the time of such person's birth possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national as defined in this Act.
I think that will make the matter clear.


Mr. EULER:: I am not a lawyer like
most of the gentlemen who have spoken on the Bill, and I realize that perhaps I am rather bold in attempting to point out what seems to me to be a lack of consistency between subsection (a) of section 1 on the one hand and subsections (b) and (c). Subsection (a) reads:
The following persons shall be deemed to be Canadian nationals, viz :-(a) any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act, chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1910, as heretofore amended.
In looking up the Immigration Act, chapter 27, section 2, I find the last paragraph of subsection (f) reads:

Provided that for the purpose of this Act a woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship by virtue of her husband being a Canadian citizen; neither shall a child, who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen.
That seems to exclude certain women and certain men, and yet subsection (b) of the Bill states specifically that the wife of any such citizen shall be deemed to be a Canadian national, and subsection (c) reads:
Any person born out of Canada whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's birth.	.
There is an inconsistency there. If we interpret according to subsection (a) and the Immigration Act, certain women and certain men would not be included, and yet subsection (b) makes no exception whatever; it says simply "the wife of any such citizen." I do not know whether the point is well taken or not. '


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are here defining
Canadian nationals. The Immigration Act was defining a Canadian citizen. The first subsection in this Bill makes everybody who is a Canadian citizen a Canadian national, and the two other subsections deal with people who are not necessarily Canadian citizens. With regard to the wife, it seemed to us proper that the wife of a Canadian national should be a Canadian national. In the Immigration Act there is a special and particular reason for not recognizing necessarily as a Canadian citizen the wife of a person who is a Canadian citizen, and the purpose of making a distinction there was to prevent a woman who never had been in Canada, and who perhaps might be subject to some objection from the immigration point of view, from coming into Canada merely because her husband had succeeded in meeting all the requirements and had become a Canadian citizen. The Immigration Act is dealing with immigration, and the term "Canadian citizen" has in that Act a meaning only with regard to immigration. We have, however, taken everybody who is a Canadian citizen under that Act and recognized him or her as a Canadian national, because that Act put upon the definition of a Canadian citizen every restriction that was thought necessary with regard to people coming into this country. If in the Immigration Act the wife of a Canadian citizen as such, without any other condition, had become a Canadian citizen we need not have said anything about her in this Act; but we are doing so because we
do not see the necessity of maintaining with regard to a Canadian national the same distinction which from the immigration point of view it was thought desirable to make in the case of a person who never was in Canada.
With regard to the Canadian citizen suppose a man came into this country and acquired Canadian citizenship under the Immigration Act and then went out and married the most notorious prostitute, a woman of the worst of habits. It would not -be thought desirable, would it, that because she had married that Canadian- citizen, she should be entitled to come right into our country? She will not be entitled to come right into our country and therefore in this Act it does not seem necessary to make the same distinction with regard to a Canadian national. Though under this Act she may be entitled to call herself a Canadian national, under the Immigration Act she would not be entitled to come into Canada,


Charles Murphy: In view of the point raised by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, and the explanation given by the Minister of Justice, may I suggest to him that a good deal of confusion with regard to the interpretation of this section might be avoided if no part of that interpretation was dependent upon the language of some other statute? If, instead of this reference in subsection (a) to another Act, a definition were given in the subsection without reference to any other Act, there would be less danger of confusion, because the other Act upon which the interpretation of this subsection depends may be amended from time to time, and consequently the definition in this Act will be affected by such amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member will notice that in referring to the definition we refer to "a Canadian citizen within the meaning of The Immigration Act, chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1910, as heretofore amended." We say, "as heretofore amended." We are fixing it now. It is not going to follow that because somebody amends the Immigration Act in the future, that that amendment will affect this Act:
With regard to the other part of it, what seemed to us was this: We get a definition in the Immigration Act as it stands that is satisfactory. What would be gained by copying that definition into this statute? I think that there is some value in connecting your legislation, but all that we were concerned with in this Act,

once we had come to the conclusion that the definition of a Canadian citizen in the Immigration Act was satisfactory as far as it went, was to provide for people, if there were any, who we thought ought to be Canadian nationals, though they did not come within the definition of a Canadian citizen as contained in the Immigration Act, and those two classes are the people dealt with in (b) and (c). The Immigration Act, peculiarly enough, does not say anywhere that the wife of a Canadian citizen, even after she has come *in o Canada, and is accepted, is by the fact *x her being the wife of a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen herself, but it does enact as though it thought that if she were landed in Canada the mere fact that her husband was a Canadian citizen would make her one. It does enact negativing her right to be a Canadian citizen merely because her husband is one, unless she has been landed in Canada. That, I think, is a very wise provision from the point of view of immigration. It protects us from the coming in of improper people merely because they happen to be the wives of perfectly proper people perhaps. It did not seem to us in dealing with the definition of a Canadian national generally, where there was no question of the country being practically affected, that it was necessary to get down to as fine a definition as that. We thought we might safely follow what is a general rule in all legislation I have seen with regard to nationality, namely, that the wife of the man has the nationality he has.


William Daum Euler: I quite understand that it is possible for a person to be a Canadian national, and yet not be a Canadian citizen, but it seemed to me there was some conflict in the various subsections.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is an intentional difference.


William Daum Euler: Is it .fair to assume, then, that sub-sections (b) and (c) are inserted in order to over-ride the disqualification that would otherwise exist by virtue of subsection (a) of the Immigration Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. The Immigration Act stands absolutely untouched, and as regards immigration will continue absolutely to govern. Our reference to it is only for the purpose of bringing in as Canadian nationals everybody who is a Canadian citizen under the Immigration Act. It does not make anybody a Canadian citizen who under the Immigration Act is not

a Canadian citizen. It does not remove any disability, as, for instance, in the case of the wife, the disability resulting from the fact that she has not been landed in Canada. The Immigration Act stands as the law, absolutely untouched. All that this Act is doing is defining what is a Canadian national.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the right hon. gentleman read the definition in the Immigration Act?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before the minister
does so, I should like to say just a word. Would it not be well for the minister to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Russell (Mr Murphy) ? We are going to be asked in this statute to make reference to another statute that may be changed from ye,ar to year. The minister has pointed out that this statute will not change from year to year, and he is quite right, but in order t'o find out what this statute says, we will have to turn in years to come, not to the Immigration Act that we are familiar with at that future date, but to the Immigration Act as it exists today. We will have to trace the changes in the Immigration Act up to this day, and then stop there. I wish the minister to realize that most of the questions that have come from this side of the House are in the tone of helpful and instructive criticism; I think I am speaking for a great number on this side of the House when I say that we are glad to see anything that points to a definite acceptance of our status of nationality; of course, in this vale of tears I never expect to reach the condition where everybody will agree with what I say, but I put it to the minister, as this Act may be consulted frequently from time to time, would it not be better to have that other Act put in full in this clause, in order that it may be a sort of handbook for us in the future?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will answer first the question of my hon. friend from Lotbiniere. Sub-section (f) of section 2 of the Immigration Act says:
(2)	A British subject who has Canadian domicile; or.
(3)	A person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lbst Canadian domicile:
Provided that for the purpose of this Act s woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not he held to have acquired Canadian citizenship by viiture of her husband being a Canadian citizen ; neither shall a child who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen.

That is the definition broadly. But there are definitions of Canadian domicle which of course have to be read into that definition, because we have to deal with a British subject who has Canadian domicile. Now,
I did not repeat that definition because it would have involved in this Bill not only the reproduction of those few lines from the Immigration Act, but also the definitions in that Act, first, of domicile, and then of Canadian domicile and, I think, even of how Canadian domicile is lost, because Canadian citizenship goes with it; and under our definition Canadian nationalism would go with it if nationalism or citizenship does not depend on birth but merely on domicile. It would be possible to copy this into this Act.


Thomas Vien: What is the difference between domicile, as defined by that Act, and Canadian domicile?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that the definition in the Act is exactly the definition which, generally speaking, would by law define domicile. So far as I can see, the definition there was intended perhaps to avoid the difficulties with regard to intention which arise when you have at common law to determine the question of the change of domicile. I think the purpose of making this particular definition of domicile was to get rid of that question of determining that there was an intention to change domicile:	As I think every lawyer
knows, it is one of the most puzzling things when you are thrown on the common or everyday law for the purpose of determining change of domicile.


Thomas Vien: How would they overcome
the difficulty by the definition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether they succeeded I do not say, but domicile in the definitions means:
The place in -which a person has his home, or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does hot mean the place where he resides for some special or temporary purpose.
I may be mistaken, but I think that if you did not have that section a man might have his home in Canada, which might be the place to which he returned, but he might never have given up his domicile of origin and might be still domiciled in France or England. I do not want to get into the niceties of the matter.


Thomas Vien: I fail to see how the definition as given in the Immigration Act overcomes the question of intention, which has
to be proven in every case. If he has not left his domicile in England his real domicile* will of course be there, because he cannot have two.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under that definition, though his domicile, to all intents and purposes, may be in England he will, under our Immigration Act, have a Canadian domicile. I would rather not he led into what I am satisfied might be an interminable discussion of the intricacies of the question of how you determine at common law when a man has changed his domicile.
I have had occasion to go into the question in a number of cases, and I think it was a wise provision in the statute here not to require, in order to enable a man to say that he had Canadian domicile that allowed him to come back into this country, that he should be able to establish positively, according to the ordinary law, that his domicile of origin had actually ceased to be his domicile and that his actual and real domicile was here. At all events, whatever may have been the wisdom of it, the definition is there.


Thomas Vien: You are in effect reproducing it in this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The view as expressed in this Bill is that if it is a good enough domicile to entitle a man to come into this country and to go back and forth freely under the Immigration Act, it is good enough to entitle him, on the one hand, to be treated as a Canadian national and, on the other hand, to subject him to the obligations of a Canadian national. It must be borne in mind that while it looms large in our eyes as a very great privilege to be a Canadian national, that privilege carries with it certain duties, and we are interested not only in seeing that those entitled to this great privilege may be able to demonstrate it, but that it is made clear just who are subject to our legislation as applicable exclusively to Canadian nationals; and that will come to have a greater importance when, as I anticipate, we have had passed the amendment removing doubts as to the extraterritoriality of our legislation. The practical question is, what is the balance of convenience *-because I do not understand that we differ as to the substance of the matter- to recopy into this Act all these definitions of domicile, etc., or to content ourselves with stereotyping them now as being for all time, at least until we amend the law, the test as to who is a Canadian national? Now, it is true that a man will have to go

to the Immigration Act to-day to ascertain what domicile is. But might I point, out that until our present Act which we are passing is modified he will have to go back to the Canadian Nationalization Act of today to find what a Canadian national is? I do not really appreciate as. greatly as my hon. friends do the difficulty of having to refer from one statute to another, both being cotemporaneous. The Act appeared to me to be really more simple and. clear by putting it into the shape in which it was, but if hon. gentlemen think it a matter of importance, I am willing to consider the suggestion that we might improve things by recopying this statute. It is very usual to legislate by reference to other existing statutes rather than to repeat the provisions referred to.


Thomas Vien: I think that the reasons
given by the right hon. gentleman should prompt us to ask that the question put by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) be further considered and answered. The right hon. gentleman has told us that he wanted to avoid two things; first, a discussion as to the definition given in the Immigration Act of the word "domicile"; secondly, the repetition of that definition because it meant three definitions-the first that of "Canadian citizen," the second "domicile" and the third, "Canadian domicile." In the explanation which the minister has given I find a reason that should justify us in insisting upon a definition of the word "domicile." I have the definition as given by the minister, but I contend that if in the Immigration Act the word " domicile" may be so defined, it will not preclude a person from becoming a Canadian citizen, even if he has not left his domicile in England. I contend, Sir, that we should define what a Canadian national is and we should attach to the definition of "domicile" such restrictions as would permit nobody to be a Canadian national if he has kept his domicile in England or elsewhere. Suppose, for instance, that a gentleman comes from Holland. According to the definition of the word " domicile" in the Immigration Act he is not necessarily bound to prove that he has left his domicile in Holland. He could become a Canadian citizen without that, provided he complies with the wording of the Immigration Act which is, as the right hon. gentleman clearly stated and explained a minute ago, that he has a principal place of domicile where he returns to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that if his theory is right

we will inevitably get into a long discussion as to what technically may be a "domicile."


Thomas Vien: It may be necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is almost inevitable with regard to every man who wants to be a Canadian national, is that you may have the greatest difficulty in the world in establishing his domicile. More particularly will that be difficult in the case of his children. Surely the hon. gentleman would be satisfied-


Thomas Vien: No, not after the explanation given by the hon. gentleman a minute ago.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because I told the hon. gentleman in substance that theoretically a man's domicile may be somewhere else he will not be satisfied though the man has practically done all the things which satisfied the requirements of the Immigration Act. The purpose of that definition is to get rid of the difficulty of proving a thing exceedingly difficult to prove. Now, will the hon. gentleman look for a moment at the other side of this picture. It will be acknowledged that in many and many an instance there will be an interest in claiming that the man is a Canadian national. Are we going to have people coming into this country, and domiciled under all the conditions prescribed under all the conditions prescribed in the Immigration Act, free to say to us: "Oh, I am not a Canadian national; I am not governed by those laws that apply to Canadian nationals." I sympathize with the hon. gentleman in the high value, the immense value, that he attaches to being a Canadian citizen-we are all proud of our Canadian nationality-but while I fully join with my hon. friend in that sentiment he must remember also that in many and many a case it will be the interest of this country to establish the fact that a man who is living in Canada-and getting all the advantages and benefits that he enjoys if he complies with the definition of a domicile-should be subjected to every law that applies to a Canadian national.
Mi\ VIEN: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the explanation given does not convince me at all. I think that we should not allow a person residing in Canada to claim to be a Canadian national if he has a domicile elsewhere. That the Immigration Act does not compel a person to prove his intent to abandon his domicile elsewhere before becoming a Canadian citizen is an unfortunate thing in my opinion. I am not responsible for what was done in

1910 or for the amendments made to that Act; but if I had been a member of the House at that time I would have objected to a definition which would allow a person to become a Canadian citizen without at first giving up the domicile that he had in any other country, be it France, Belgium, England or elsewhere. It is impossible to obtain national unity in this country, it is impossible to create that Cana-dianism which the right hon. gentleman claims to have fostered for the last few years, without exacting from every person who wishes to become a Canadian citizen the abandonment of any domicile he may have in any other country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does the hon. gentleman know that in order to become a British subject and to be naturalized under the laws of this country there is absolutely no requirement to abandon domicile? All that is required to become a British subject is that you should reside in this country for five years. The question of domicile is not raised at all; there is no requirement of any kind of domicile. We have gone further in our definition of Canadian citizenship than is necessary to be naturalized as a British subject. The hon. gentleman would create for our Canadian nationalism, and the acquisition of it, conditions that no other country has dreamed of requiring. What I want to point out to the hon. gentleman again is that the cases involved will be few and far between-very, very few-where the man who has complied with the requirements of our Immigration Act has not really got his domicile in Canada. But the purpose of that definition is to avoid the necessity, once you get all these outstanding facts-which in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand cases will mean that the man actually has his domicile here-establishing under the common law the change of intention as regards domicile. When I say "one in a thousand" it would probably be only in one case in ten thousand that the domicile of a man who had complied with all the requirements would not be in Canada. The purpse is to get rid of the difficulty of proving what is in a man's mind as to the seat of his principal establishment and to get rid of the rule under common law that a man always through his life has his domicile of origin unless you prove affirmatively not merely that he came away from there and lived elsewhere, but that he had the intention of changing his domicile.
Mr. V1EN: Does not the right hon. gentleman believe that it is a good thing?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have difficulty in
thinking of anything that could be worse. There is nothing sacred about the common law domicile. If we get people to come here and make Canada their place of abode, whether they are British subjects to begin with or become naturalized as such, I cannot conceive that it would be a misfortune that they should be Canadian nationals during all that time because perhaps they have in the back of their heads the idea that some time they will go back to be buried, we will say, in the country they came from. At common law that is what you have got to negative. You have got to prove in some way what the man's intention was in addition to everything he did. Of course, what he did is valuable evidence of what he intended. If the hon. gentleman's suggestion were carried out, so far as it would modify this law it would make it unworkable and would not prevent any misunderstanding.


Thomas Vien: We are trying to define Canadian nationals-ressortissants du Canada. I would object to any definition which would cover persons who do not live in Canada with the intention of making this country their home permanently-


Charles Joseph Doherty: We require him to
make it his home.


Thomas Vien: There is no similarity between the case of a British subject and the case of a Canadian national. A British subject may be such whether he lived in Australia, in India, or in South Africa.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Or whether he lived in France.


Thomas Vien: It does not matter at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exactly, Why should
it matter here?


Thomas Vien: That is why I say there
is no similarity between the principle of becoming a British subject, as mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, and what we purpose to do by this law; that is to say, to create Canadian nationals. I would not like to say that all British subjects will become Canadian nationals, because the minister must bear in mind that it gives some advantage for those persons who are about to be defined by the Act to be able to claim they are Canadian nationals, it also implies a responsibility. Therefore, I would not like the Act to define as Canadian nat-

ionals persons who do not intend to make Canada their principal place of permanent abode. In the second place, Sir, I beg strongly to support the motion of my hon. friend from Brome. No matter what the definition may be, it will be much clearer and much handier for reference purposes that these three definitions be given here. For that reason I would ask that the expressions "Canadian citizen," "domicile" and "Canadian domicile" be repeated in this Bill.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Frank S. Cahill: Is a British subject under all conditions permitted to come into Canada under the Immigration Act; and, if so what is a British subject under the Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are certain
classes of British subjects who may be excluded from Canada. That is precisely the advantage of being a Canadian citizen. All British subjects are not entitled de pleno simply because they are British subjects to come into Canada; they are likely to be excluded if they come under any of the excluding sections of the Canadian Act. When the hon. gentleman asks me what is a British subject, I would inform him that he would find enumerated in the British National Act the kinds of people who are British subjects. For instance, everybody born within the realm is a British subject; everybody born outside the realm but of a father who is a British subject is a British subject; and everybody naturalized under the laws of the United Kingdom or under the laws of Canada becomes by such naturalization a British subject. A British subject is a man who owes allegiance to, and who is entitled to protection as a subject of the British Crown. Our Canadian national will be that kind of British subject who is in a special manner subject to and owes obedience to Canadian laws as administered through Parliament and the Government and ultimately His Majesty, he being King of these Dominions just as he is King of Great Britain and the entire Empire.
As regards the suggestion that I should insert this definition in the Bill, I cannot attach to it the importance that the hon. gentleman does. However, I would be willing to consider referring to this definition as fully developed in the schedule and printed in those sections in the schedule.
I am sorry that I cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. gentleman with regard to the question of domicile although I recognize the strength of his conviction on the
[Mr. "VienJ
subject. As to the mere form, I do think it would make a very awkward Act if you deemed it necessary to take definitions out of another Act to which you refer and recopy them into an Act intended only to give a definition and I confess I do not see the advantage of it. It would be almost as reasonable to say that when you amend an article of the Civil Code of Quebec you must begin by going back and reproducing the code; that every time there is any connection between any two laws you must reproduce both of them in the same statute. I confess that I cannot see the importance of taking such a course. We have at all times to refer from one statute to another and, as I pointed out a little while ago, supposing it is tweny-five years hence, this Act will have been amended by that time or it will not have been. If it has not been, you will have to go right back to this date' to find the definition. But if you did, what would the hardship be?


Thomas Vien: The hardship would be this: you will have to cover a period of ten years to find out what amendments have been made.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, is it such an appalling thing to have to look at statutes going back a period of ten years? Surely in my hon. friend's own experience the cases are few in which he does not have to look at more than one statute. The Immigration Act as it stands to-day is printed in one book, and it would be very easy to look up.


Lucien Cannon: At the opening of the
discussion the right hon. gentleman explained that this Bill is a consequence of our being a separate and distinct member of the League of Nations. The British Empire is also a member of the League of Nations; will the British Empire have British Empire nationals, while at the same time, Australia, Canada, India, and South Africa have nationals of their own? If so, what will be the legal difference between a British Empire national and a Canadian national?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The description of the British Empire as a distinct member of the League has always been interpreted as meaning the United Kingdom with the Crown colonies and dependencies.


Lucien Cannon: Excluding the dominions?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. I may say that there has been serious criticism of the adoption of that form. It was urged at the

time that the United Kingdom with the Crown colonies and dependencies should have been one member, and we should have been the others, all together going to make up the British Empire. We were not able to get it put that way, in words.


Thomas Vien: Why?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Really I cannot tell you why; no reason was given that I could possibly grasp. I do not know how far it is proper that I should publicly discuss things that took place in discussion in a small committee; perhaps it is not proper that I should go into the details. But while we could not get our view recognized in words, we have it recognized in practice. The British Empire is spoken of as one member of the League, but in the practical operation it is the United Kingdom that is that particular member, and we of the dominions had our membership and our representation and our say on a footing of equality with the gentlemen who represented the United Kingdom. I think that when the proper opporutnity comes we should urge that that misnomer be corrected, and when we do so we shall probably be able to make the reasonableness of our contention apparent. Perhaps it will be permissible for me to say that in officialdom, which counts for a great deal on the other side, you find an aversion to calling things by their right names. They have a love for hanging on to an old name, even when the thing itself has ceased to exist. Possibly after a thing has been gone for years, even for centuries, the name will still be there.


Thomas Vien: Has it not occurred in
Canada also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Particularly in the naming
of political parties.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. I have always been struck with the extent to which the name "Liberal" is a misnomer, as applied to so many hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. Certainly my hon. friend has hit upon an apt illustration.


Thomas Vien: And the word "Tory."


Charles Joseph Doherty: And how utterly inapplicable the word "Tory" is to some people over here.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: When I
was in Paris about ten years ago I sought to have myself registered as a Canadian in one of the Departments of the French
Government. That designation was refused and I was inscribed simply as a British subject. That, of course, was quite satisfactory to me, but I would like to know whether as a result of this legislation a man may in future claim to be inscribed on any public document as a Canadian?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly think he
would be entitled to; indeed, I thought he was in the past. On any occasion when I have been travelling and have been asked what my nationality was, I have said: "Canadian"-and it went right down. At the League of Nations we from Canada were never known as anything else-and we were not anything else-than the Canadian representatives, and we sat at the table in the position officially designated "Canadian Delegation." As I had occasion to say the other day, time develops many things. Perhaps it is some years since my hon. friend was in Paris.


Charles Marcil: I was there in 1910.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, that is ten years ago-and we are getting along.


Thomas Vien: Is it the purpose of the Bill to establish clearly who is a Canadian national as distinguished from nationals of France or of other countries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, we can only make laws that are laws in Canada. When the country defines what its nationals or its subjects or its citizens are, it does not make a law that binds an outside country. But it puts before the world its contention; in the first place, it makes them such in its own country, where its law has force, and then it puts before the world who it is that it claims as its subjects. It can do nothing more.


Thomas Vien: And a subject may be claimed by two countries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly, just to-day
we have innumerable cases of dual nationality. In the recent war there were many instances of young men who had been born in Canada of French fathers. Those young men were Canadians, British subjects, undoubtedly, but in France they were French citizens, and we saw many of them go back to join the colours in France, recognizing their position as French citizens. It is one of the things that is inseparable from nationality that, as each country makes its own laws, you always have the possibility of dual nationalities; I do not think

you can get rid of them until you have some system of treaties or conventions.


Lucien Cannon: What will be the exact new privileges or rights conferred on Canadian nationals, in accordance with this law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This law confers no
rights whatever upon Canadian nationals. It defines what a Canadian national is.


Lucien Cannon: What is the object of
the law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there never had been a League of Nations, and if, therefore, we never had any rights to exercise there, I would have thought the Canadian Parlia ment, in view, amongst other things, of what the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. P. Maclean) said a little while ago and in view of what the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) has said, would have welcomed a Bill defining this.


Lucien Cannon: We all do.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, the hon. gentleman asks me what rights this Bill is going to confer. This Bill is not going to give anybody any rights. This Bill makes a definition. Let me give one instance, and it is only one. The nationals of every country that is a member of the League have, to begin with, a right to representation in the Assembly. We' want to exercise those rights. We have a right to nominate Canadian nationals as aspirants for appointment to the permanent Court of Inter-nationl Justice and, if we get a majority, to elect them. If we have litigation with any other country brought before that permanent Court, and there happens to be sitting upon that permanent Court a national for our adversary, then we have a right to say:	" We want a national of ours to sic
there too to balance the thing up," because they do not proceed by recusing the judge who is a national of one of the parties: their method of evening the matter up is to say to the other party: " You may have a judge of your nationality." All these things turn upon our nationality. Supposing some one says to us: " Is this gentleman a Canadian national?" What is a Canadian national? What is a British subject? This is what the Parliament of Canada is defining to be a Canadian national. If, after the passing of this legislation, I declare that I am a Canadian national, and anybody disputes that, I will turn to the Statute and say:	" I fulfil all those conditions." For years back, why do you find

in the laws of Great Britain, or in France, or of any other civilized country, the definition of their citizen or subject or national? Surely we have the same interest as all other countries have to form a clear-cut idea of who it is that is entitled, not only to rights in the outside world, but to claim for himself the honourable and distinctive title of Canadian national. We want to define that.


Thomas Vien: I understand the minister,
is going to introduce a schedule containing a definition.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I said that I was going to consider that. I must say that I have not been able to consider it very much since, but the more I consider it, the less it impresses me as a necessary thing. I shall, however, be glad to consider whether it would be desirable to do that or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose the principle of this Bill is conceded by its receiving its second reading. It is fortunate for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that he is a member of a Tory Government when introducing and advocating and carrying through Parliament legislation of this kind. I can recall very well conditions in this House when, if a Minister of Justice in a Liberal administration would introduce anything that would look like severance from the mother country and cutting away the sacred ties between ourselves and the mother land, woe betide us because we would hear from the stalwart gentleman from Ontario whom I see looking at me from the other side. '


Charles Joseph Doherty: This does not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But it seems to be all right for this Minister of Justice to be a Nationalist. A Nationalist in this country has a significant meaning, and our Tory friend do not like to be told that they are in league with the Nationalists; that they are in league with a Nationalist who used to make openings in the British flag.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There are Nationalists and Nationalists.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now it is all right to put us all in the same class and say that we are all Nationalists. The Bourassa sect and everybody that followed him are all right now. We have found that we have come to them, and we are all Nationalists. I do not think the good loyal people of Ontario will like the idea that we have forsaken Canadian citizenship.

with all that that term meant, and that we are now Nationalists, if we take our definition of a Nationalist from what Mr. Bourassa and those behind him were preaching. In 1867, only four provinces of Canada entered Confederation; they each had their status before Confederation; but when they became Canada, they got that status from an Imperial Act of Parliament, and in that Imperial Act they are called the "Dominion of Canada." By what right does this Parliament change the name from the "Dominion of Canada" to the "Nation of Canada"? We have no right, instead of calling ourselves the "Dominion of Canada" to call ourselves the "Nation of Canada." That means a change in the British North America Act, and after this Act passes, wherever the name "Dominion of Canada" occurs in the British North America Act, we shall have to substitute for it the "Nation of Canada" or the "Kingdom of Canada." There is no "Nation of Canada," and no person can say for one moment that there is. Before you can have a Nationalist, you must have a nation. As far as I am concerned, to be a Canadian citizen and a British subject is good enough for me, and I do not find it necessary, even with all its beauty and wealth of language and fine definition, to go to France for any definition of what I am. I am a Canadian.
. Mr. DOHERTY: We are trying to give you a home-made definition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am a Canadian and a British subject and particularly proud of being a subject of the British Empire and under the folds of the British flag. For that reason, I submit to the minister that I do not think we have any right to use the word "national," nor have we any business to declare ourselves a nation except by some convention with the Mother Country. If it is agreed to by convention that all the Dominions shall be called nations, and so forth, I shall have no fault to find; but it is going too far for this Parliament to declare that we are no longer a Dominion of Canada, but a nation with all the responsibilities that that word implies. We must be either one thing or the other. If we are a nation,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -we have a right to declare war. Will my hon. friends who are saying, "hear, hear" say that we have a right to declare war, or to pass in this House legislation that would be a cause of war between Great Britain and any other
country? They will have to say that we could not. But if people are satisfied with the empty shell and are content to think they are a nation when they are not, I suppose we should not deprive them of the privilege of playing with the idea; but there is no such thing. It is always unwise to live under false pretences, and I see no advantage whatever in trying prematurely to get away from our present status to be a nation when we are really not.
I think the whole of this legislation is a useless bungle of words.


Mr. PARENT:: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: I want to point out to the committee before the hon. member speaks that a discussion on the principle of the Bill is certainly not now in order. The Bill was held over at the request of the Opposition owing to the fact that it was not printed, and in order that the principle might be discussed upon the second reading. It is certainly not in order for hon. members to discuss the principle of the Bill at this stage.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the Chairman has any reference to me he is sending coals to Newcastle. I was in this House many years before the hon. gentleman, and I know the rules of the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman will then possibly remember that among the rules of the House' is one that the ruling of the Chair cannot be questioned, and that it can only be appealed from.
I hope that the other hon. members of the committee will adhere to the ruling.


Georges Parent: It was not my intention to make a speech at all. I simply wanted to call the attention of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) to a state of affairs which I have noticed while travelling from New York to Montreal. I was just wondering whether it would not be possible to have the form of questions submitted to immigrants and Canadian passengers coming into this country printed in both the French and English languages. That will be a good job for the Printing Bureau if the hon. gentleman Wants to see that both languages in this country receive equal consideration.


Mr. CALDER:: That involves a question that is scarcely pertinent to the provisions of this Bill. There is something in the suggestion made by the hon. member but at the same time we must remember there are a great many people in Canada other

than the French-speaking people. The number of people entering Canada from France during the last 10 or 15 years has been comparatively small compared with the numbers arriving from other countries, and if it is desirable to have these forms printed in some language other than English, it certainly would be desirable to have them printed in these other languages as well. I am aware, of course, of the argument for having public documents printed in the two official languages, but that is not applied all along the line.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think I ought to point out very respectfully to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization that the French language is on a very different footing in this country from the other languages to which he alludes. The first part of my hon. friend's remarks would almost lead an impartial observer to the conclusion that he had forgotten that fact. I am sure that he cannot have done so, but if by any possibility he has, I take in all kindness this opportunity of reminding him of it. As far as official documents are concerned, the hon. member (Mr. Parent) is only asking what I would imagine the constitution of the country accorded him.


Thomas Vien: There is something more to be said in that direction in answer to my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The question put by my hon. frend (Mr. Parent) was in reference to Canadian nationals who travel-they, are not necessarily immigrants-and who when coming into Canada after a journey to the United States are obliged to answer a questionnaire. A great number of those who travel from New York, Boston, and other American cities to Canada would not understand the questions if they were put to them in English. Very often these people are Canadian nationals coming back to their country. May I ask when we shall know the decision of the right hon. the Minister of Justice as to the schedule?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have promised to consider it. I would like to have the Bill go through, and if I should come to the conclusion that it was desirable to add the schedule, I would have the Bill sent back into committee. I Would; ask the Ihon. gentleman if he would be kind enough to think it over too, because I know of only one reason for accepting his suggestion, and that is his strong feeling on the subject; I have a great respect for that. Perhaps we might make an honourable compromise in

that way. If the Bill goes through committee, I would seriously consider the suggestion, and perhaps he will do so too; perhaps we shall both come to the conclusion that the schedule is not necessary, or perhaps we shall both come to the conclusion that it is.


Georges Parent: May I ask the right hon. the Minister of Justice if in his capacity as minister he would recommend to the Minister of Immigration and Colonization that the forms submitted to Canadian nationals travelling from other countries to Canada be printed in both the French and English languages?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think they ought to
have the questions put to them in one or the other of the official languages which they understand, which, of course, in my own case and the case of many hon. gentlemen on the other side will involve the necessity of printing them in both languages, as we happen to have the good fortune to understand both. I think that was the sense in which the Minister of Immigration and Colonization spoke. I do not suppose the suggestion is that when you are face tc face with a Russian who does not speak either French or English, you should pul the questions to him in both French and English before you go out to get a Russian interpreter and try and put the questions ir some language he does understand. Mj hon. friends, I think, know without my saying it that I have every sympathy for their feeling with regard to their language. Foi myself I never see any ground to make comparisons between the French language and any other language than the English in this country. I never see the possibility of putting the French language on a par with any foreign language in this country. To that extent I go, but I think all will agree that there can be no object in dumping before a Russian who understands neither French nor English a list of questions in French any more than there would be in putting them in English.


Georges Parent: If such a man comes
here he knows the situation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do not let the hon. gentleman suppose I am putting the French and Russian languages on a par, but the French and English. When you get people who understand neither, I would think there was not much object in talking to them in either.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Doherty moves
to amend clause 1 as printed in the Bill by substituting the word "are" for the words "shall be deemed to be," and adding the following words, "or with regard to any person born before the passing of this Act whose father at the time of such birth possessed all the qualifications <of a Canadian national as defined in this Act."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to add to the Bill as Clause 2 the following:
2. (a) Any person who by reason of his having been born in Canada is a Canadian national, but who at his birth or during his minority became under the law of the United Kingdom or of any of the self-governing dominions of the British Empire, a national also of that Kingdom or Dominion, and is still such a national, and,
(b) any person who though born out of Canada is a Canadian national; may, if of full age and not under disability, make a declaration renouncing his Canadian nationality and on making such declaration shall cease to be a Canadian national.


William Stevens Fielding: Where has this declaration to be made? The Act is silent on that point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may perhaps be desirable to specify the place. If I fall into error in that regard it is simply in following the identical analagous provision contained in the British Nationality Act and also the Act of this country. No particular formality was required for the declaration of alienage as between the nationals of different parts of the Empire. The principle laid down in the British Act with regard to a British subject who, under the circumstances mentioned there, renounces his British citizenship, was followed, and I think the section, with the words mutatis mutandis, was copied directly from that Act.


William Stevens Fielding: What do you understand it to mean as it stands now? The declaration is to be made under what circumstances, at what point, in what form, and before whom?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I say, the Act does not subject that declaration to formality. It might be well that it should. If we did that, however, we should be making a new departure. A declaration without prescribed formalities has been deemed sufficient under the existing legislation.


Thomas Vien: It may be a verbal declaration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I realize there is a
value in the suggestion that there should
be a definite form, and I shall be prepared to ascertain what is the proper form in which the declaration should be put.


Lucien Cannon: Last year in the course of the discussion of the Electoral Act, my hon. friend from Waterloo (Mr. Euler) raised certain questions as to amendments which he desired to have introduced into the law, and at that time it was declared by the Government that certain arrangements had been come to between the Imperial authorities and the overseas Dominions as to having a uniform law of nationality or citizenship.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not citizenship.


Lucien Cannon: I meant to say naturalization. The right hon. gentleman who was Prime Minister at the time (Sir Robert Borden), said if I remember rightly, that no amendment could be introduced or assented to unless the Imperial authorities were consulted. We had that official declaration in the House last year. Does this new legislation interfere in any way with the arrangements made at that time and still existing between the Imperial authorities and the Canadian Government?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This legislation does not touch the question of naturalization at all. It leaves it absolutely where it was before any one talked about this Bill, or where it would be if this Bill were never passed. As to the arrangements which the hon. gentleman speaks about, it might be well to have the circumstances in regard thereto stated clearly. There is no more arrangement that we must do as the Imperial Parliament wants on the subject of naturalization, than there is that the Imperial Parliament must do what we want. The arrangement that was come to was that, because there was something that this Parliament could give which no one else could give, and because there was something else that the British Parliament could give which neither we nor any one else could give, we would make this agreement, that so long as our laws were identical, our naturalizations, which of their own force did not apply in the United Kingdom, would by reason of this arrangement be effective there, and vice versa, so long as our laws were identical we would recognize the home naturalization laws as effective in this country. To that extent there is an understanding. It is as desirable that our naturalization should be effective throughout the Empire as it is that the naturalization of the United Kingdom should be effective here; and be-

cause constitutionally the Parliament of the United Kingdom could not naturalize a man in Canada we agreed that it was necessary to have this arrangement, just as because we could not naturalize a man in the United Kingdom it became necessary to secure a similar undertaking on their part. The agreement was one on a footing of perfect equality.


Lucien Cannon: Is it possible for a man to be a Canadian national in Canada, that is, a Canadian citizen, and not be a British subject in any other part of the British Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A man to be a Canadian national must be a British subject.


Lucien Cannon: In Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: Can he be a Canadian national and a British subject in Canada and not be a British subject in another part of the British Empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he has the good fortune to be naturalized under Canadian law he is a naturalized British subject in Canada and will be a naturalized British subject in the United Kingdom. He may not be one in Australia or in New Zealand, because they have not as yet passed the necessary legislation, and that is unfortunate. But I see no inconsistency in a man's being a Canadian national though he is not a British subject in Australia.


Lucien Cannon: What would be the case of a man who was born in the United States, naturalized a British subject under Canadian law, and now lives in England? Is he a Canadian national?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If a man was born in the United States and now lives in England, having been naturalized in Canada-* if these are all the facts and you have nothing else to suggest-he would not be a Canadian national because he was not born in Canada. When he was naturalized in Canada he was made a British subject, but in addition to being a British subject, if not born in Canada, he must have acquired a Canadian domicile.


Mr. POWER:: There is, I presume, a law defining a United Kingdom national?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not that I know of.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The Bill refers to a national "of that kingdom." I presume that refers to the United Kingdom. So there is such a thing as a United Kingdom national.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know of no Act defining one. There are lots of things that are law though they are not in Acts, and if there be no Act or law now there may be one in the future. But I think there would be a little difficulty in ascertaining who were "ressortissants" of the United Kingdom.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Am I to understand that Canada is the first of the self-governing colonies to have nationals of its own?


Andrew Ross McMaster: So much the better.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think they all have but we are the first, so far as I know, to make the definition.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Why should we not be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that is our
proper place, first in the line and first all the time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What would be the position of a gentleman in West Africa who lives under a mandatory power? What kind of a national would he be?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think it would take a very wise man indeed-wiser than I can pretend to be-to define the position of the inhabitants of countries who are under mandatories. I have not had the advantage of seeing the terms of the mandates, I do not know that they are settled, and I am afraid I will have to say that I cannot answer the question; I do not know anybody that could just now.


Thomas Vien: The Minister has spoken of an agreement which was come to, probably at the Imperial Conference in England, as to the identity of our laws on naturalization. What was the nature of that agreement? Was it written and where can it be found?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
will find it in the Canadian Statute dealing with naturalization. He will likewise find it in the statute of the United Kingdom dealing with the same subject.


Thomas Vien: That is an enactment; my question had reference to the agreement.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps "agreement" is not a proper word. I might say this to .the hon. gentleman: The agreement, so far as we can talk about an agreement, was reached at the Imperial Conference at which Sir Wilfrid Laurier represented Canada.


Thomas Vien: What year please?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In 1911. Now what
was agreed there was that it was desirable that we should have a common naturalization, and that the way to do that was to pass similar laws of naturalization in both countries. Then we passed similar laws, and out of that there arose the necessity of our keeping our laws similar. It was not peculiar to our Parliament that it was said: We cannot very well deal with the question because we have no understanding that the United Kingdom will deal with it and we want to keep our laws similar. If the hon. gentleman will look at the debate on the Naturalization Act in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom he wdll find numerous suggestions with respect to which the Minister in charge of the Bill said: "I think that is a good suggestion but you see we have not consulted with the Dominions and we want to avoid getting [DOT] our laws different." It was not a question of the United Kingdom telling us what we must do any more than a question of our telling them what they must do. It was a question of two peoples who wanted to keep their action in line to attain a common purpose. Therefore, on their side they tried to communicate with us before final action and we tried to communicate with them. But the origin of the understanding that was come to that a general naturalization was desirable and that the way to do it was by uniform legislation is to be found-although it had been talked about earlier-in the Imperial Conference of 1911. The hon. gentleman will see there what in substance is the understanding that was come to which was carried out by the British Act of 1914 and the Canadian Act of 1914.


Thomas Vien: I understand then that it was an agreement reached by all those self-governing Dominions that took part in the Conference in 1911?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Thomas Vien: I understand further that Canada and the United Kingdom are the only two parties that have acted in conformity to that agreement?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, that is my latest understanding.


Thomas Vien: Has any information been
received by the Government as to the reasons why, after the period of ten years which has elapsed since 1911, the other self-governing Dominions did not act in
accordance with the agreement that was reached at the Conference?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. I cannot possibly tell the hon. gentleman. I may tell him this:
By way of carrying out the understanding or agreement, and when I say "agreement,"
I do not want to be misunderstood-


Thomas Vien: It was a resolution of the Conference.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Everybody came to an agreement that if it was a desirable thing to have a naturalization that would go all over the Empire the best way to do it was by uniform legislation. I do not say that anyone sat down and said "I will do it," hut that was what was agreed to be the best thing to do. Carrying that out the British authorities drafted an Act which they claimed carried out the understanding, or which purported to do so. That Act was circulated throughout the Dominions and they were all asked if it was acceptable to them. All of them except Canada said that it was acceptable. Now I do not want to indulge in anything in the nature of criticism at all, but the draft had come to this country shortly before the change of Government. I do not think it had been considered by the Government that preceded the Borden administration. When we came into office we found it there and we said: "No, that never was the understanding of the agreement and we will not submit to it." That was an Act which purported to make the United Kingdom Naturalization Act effective in Canada, so that by virtue of their legislation people would find themselves entitled to have their naturalization recognized in Canada. We took the position that we would not submit to that; that whoever was to he recognized in Canada as properly naturalized must be so under the enactment of the Canadian Parliament. It took us two years and a trin to England to get that acknowledged. Finally, it was acknowledged and now our legislation stands. The position we took was the validity of a naturalization in Canada must.be accepted because it complies with all the provisions of the law of the Parliament of Canada, and not as resting on any other law. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the Naturalization Act he will see that was carried out.


William Daum Euler: It certainly was my im- ' pression that when two years ago the question of the naturalization of certain aliens, introduced by myself, was before the House the then Prime Minister and the

Acting Solicitor General (now Minister of Militia) stated that the Canadian Parliament was not competent to grant naturalization acording to its own wishes because it conflicted with the wishes of the British Parliament or with the terms of the British Act. I am very strongly of the im-presion that was so stated in the House of Commons by the then Prime Minister and also by the then Solicitor General. We remained under that impression in the session of 1919 and it was accentuated during the session of 1920. It was only at the last moment, when the Act was changed, that the admission was made that there never was ground for stating in this Parliament that the British Government was trying to dictate to us in any shape or form, that we always had that power. We were delayed for two years because members of the _ ministry, including the then Prime Minister, were under a wrong impression as to the law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I suppose it will be conceded that this discussion is not very relevant to the Bill we are now discussing.


William Daum Euler: But I would like a statement from the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be very pleased if I can^ to remove the misapprehension, which is in the mind of the hon. member. I am quite sure that there is a misapprehension there but I am not certain that I can succeed in removing it. What was stated by the Prime Minister of the time of which the hon. gentleman speaks, and also by the Solicitor General, was just what I pointed out a little while ago-that in order to maintain the Empire-wide quality of our naturalization the Parliament of the United Kingdom must see to it that its law was the same as ours, and we on our side must see to it that our law was the same as theirs. It was not for lack of authority, but it was because the Imperial Parliament had passed certain provisions and there was a mistaken impression that those provisions had been embodied by the draftsman in that portion of the Act which it was necessary should be identical with the British Act. It was in that the mistake consisted. The clauses referred to were not included in that portion of the Act which was required to be identical. I may say that as it happened-and I am not saying this to glorify myself-when I took up the statute and read it two things became apparent to me. That there had been a mistake; but
[Mr. Buler. 1
from the form in which the statute was drafted in was not at all to be wondered that the draftsman had fallen into confusion. Let me tender my congratulations to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I know it makes him so happy, and I would hate to detract from his happiness. I admit that we made a mistake. Oh, joy, that there was once a Government composed of members of this party that made a mistake! I hope that through the years to come the hon. gentleman will be able to hug that delightful thought to his bosom, and I feel some happiness in so far as I have contributed to the mistake which has brought that very great happiness to the hon. gentleman. Now I would like to get back to our Bill if I might.


William Daum Euler: Just one moment. The
minister perhaps takes almost as much pleasure out of the last part of his oration as he hoped I was taking.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is impossible.


William Daum Euler: My object in making the
statement I did a few moments ago was possibly because of misapprehension of what the minister had said. I understand him to say that this Government could not have enacted naturalization legislation without reference to the British law, and that it took this Government two years to induce the British Government to change its attitude. If that is not what he said I misunderstood him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly you did.


William Daum Euler: I know that the mistake,
which never should have occurred and which gives him so much pleasure to dwell upon, was not the fault of the minister himself but some one else's entirely.


Charles Joseph Doherty: From what the hon.
gentleman says I must have conveyed an entirely erroneous impression. We must be fair to everybody. The mistake was exactly the mistake I referred to in taking the Act up here. As the hon. gentleman will have occasion sometimes to refer to that Act he will find that it is divided into two parts.


William Daum Euler: I know all about that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Part two of the Act is essentially the part to keep identical. When the British Parliament came to amend the Act they made certain amendments to part two by inserting certain words in the section here and there, and I think in some

places they substituted sections; then they enacted three additional sections, making new substantive dispositions, and finally they put a clause at the end to say-I do not recall it at the present moment, but it was one that would convey to one the impression at first glance that all of these preceding amendments were amendments to part two; but when you looked at them closely you could see that that was not correct, and that the last two or three dispositions were perfectly distinct and not intended to amend part two. To be perfectly fair to the British Government, they never pretended that those articles did amend part two; the mistake was on this side entirely. In fact, it is apparent very early in the correspondence that not only had the British Government not fallen into error, but that when they found the discussion that was going on here they took occasion to cable calling our attention to the fact that we were making a mistake. So the hon. gentleman must not have any idea that it was any attempt at imposition of authority on the part of the British Government. We make mistakes sometimes. I made one the other day and was admonished by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and it is always a delight to him when he is able to talk of our blunders.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He would be talking
all the time.


Thomas Vien: I understood the right hon.
gentleman to say that when the Government undertake to enact naturalization laws they confer with the British Government so as to obtain some similarity between their laws and ours. Is that conference taking place also with the other self-governing dominions so as to try and obtain that similarity with their laws?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The practice has been
to transfer suggestions to the other dominions. For instance, if the British Government made suggestions to us they would make them to the other self-governing dominions too, and if we transmitted suggestions to the British Government that Government would submit them to the Parliaments of the other self-governing dominions. Why the other self-governing dominions have not acted I have no reason of knowing.


Thomas Vien: As to that-


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us get to bed.


Thomas Vien: Everybody who wants to go to bed is free to go. **


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Vien: Was the proposed Bill discussed at the League of Nations?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Thomas Vien: Was it suggested at the Peace Conference?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Thomas Vien: And was it discussed as between Canada and the United Kingdom?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No.


Thomas Vien: It is purely on the initiative of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Thomas Vien: And without any understanding that any other part of the British Empire will take the same action?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Exactly; we have no understanding as to whether any other part of the British Empire will think proper to define its nationals or not, and with all respect I think it is none of our business. Equally so, I like to believe that other parts of the Empire fully recognize that this is no concern of theirs. We are defining our own Canadian nationals. Some other of the self-governing dominions may deem it wise to define their nationals-Australia, for instance-but Australia will do exactly what she likes about it. I do not think the Canadian Parliament would feel that we had to go and ask anybody else's leave to define who we are. It is for us to recognize who is a Canadian and who is not.


Lucien Cannon: I understand that after this Bill is passed Canada will, at future meetings of the League, always be represented by a Canadian national.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should think so.


Lucien Cannon: Or might Canada be
in the same position as South Africa was at the last meeting of the League, when she was represented by Lord Robert Cecil? In-view of the passage of this Bill will it no longer be possible for the Government to delegate their powers, for instance, to someone else of his standing?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should not like to
answer for what may happen in the future -when, for instance, my hon. friend be-



comes a member of the Canadian Government. I should think, however, that any Canadian Government would always be able to find Canadian nationals competent to represent Canada in the Assembly of the League of Nations. I do not want to enter - upon any discussion of what General Smuts thought it proper to do in regard to South Africa; that is a matter for South Africans to settle. All hon. gentlemen will agree that on some odd occasion it might happen, when there was nothing important to be done and ornamental representation only was required, you might ask somebody on the spot to be good enough to act as Canada's representative.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I hope the minister
does not infer that the people in the British Isles or in any other part of the Empire would be more ornamental than Canadian nationals?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not more ornamental,
but, you see, " quand on n'a pas ce qu'on aime, on aime ce qu'on a." When you do not have a simon-pure Canadian national, then, if occasion requires, you might utilize somebody who was not quite so goodlooking.


Thomas Vien: It has been found difficult
so far to get a Canadian national to represent us at Washington; it may be difficult to get a Canadian national to represent us at the League of Nations.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
should not pile all our troubles on us at the one moment. When he sees whom we shall select, he will agree that the waiting was worth while.


Lucien Cannon: Especially if, as the
press reports suggest, my hon. friend himself is appointed to the position.


Thomas Vien: Will the right hon. gentleman tell us what has been the cause of the delay?
M. DOHERTY: Waiting for the numerous suggestions that we gather in day by day and night by night. It would have been a pity if opportunity had not been given for the valuable advice that that wait has given rise to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that the British flag is the only flag recognized on Canadian ships by foreign nations. Will the adoption of this measure bring about any change in that respect?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will not affect our ships in the slightest; we will keep on land for the time being.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then our flag will
still not be recognized in any foreign coun-' try?


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we get a flag 1 suppose we wil attend to its recognition.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The hon. member knows well that on the Canadian merchant ships we fly the red ensign the same as the British ships, except that we have the Canadian coat-of-arms on it.


Thomas Vien: Is it recognized abroad?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Internationally?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I believe so.


Thomas Vien: I understand that a few
years ago our Canadian flag-a British ensign with the Canadian coat-of-arms-[DOT] was hauled down in the harbour of New York or Boston because it was not internationally recognized. Has this status been changed?


Arthur Bliss Copp: After this Bill passes will it be possible for a person to be a Canadian national and also a national of some other overseas dominion or the United Kingdom?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So long as a person who is a Canadian national did not, even though he became a national of some other dominion, make the declaration contemplated in the Bill, he would continue to be a Canadian national. If a British subject in the United States had a son born to him, that son would be a British subject and an American citizen. I mentioned instances earlier in the evening of men born in this country who were both British subjects and French citizens. I know of no way of avoiding that unless we come to some convention in the matter. It might be desirable at some time that some convention in that regard should be arrived at between the dominions and the Mother Country. We have a provision here to enable a man to choose which one he will adhere to if he should happen to find himself in that position.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But if he is a national of Canada and also of another dominion or the United Kingdom and does not choose to make any declaration, which must he take?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Arthur Bliss Copp: He can exercise all the
privileges of being a Canadian national, irrespective of whether he is also a national of another country?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, just as a man
born in Canada, though his father, being a Frenchman, was a French citizen, may enjoy all the privileges of a British subject either in this country or in the United Kingdom.


Georges Parent: Under the Indian Act I understand that an Indian is not a "person". Will he become a Canadian national under this Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, I must confess that I have not given consideration to the question of the Indian. However, I have no reason to doubt that under the disposition of this Act an Indian would be a Canadian national if he was born in Canada.


Thomas Vien: When is the minister going
to bring down that definition of the declaration?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I can take it that these clauses are adopted. I was going to move that the committee rise and report progress.


William Stevens Fielding: And let the Bill remain in committee?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, for the purpose of the declaration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would seem to me
that subsection (b) of section 2 more properly belongs to the Naturalization Act. I do not think we have any right to declare here how any man can throw off the responsibility of having become a British subject.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question is not
one of throwing off British citizenship; it is purely limited to his Canadian nationality, and that is what he is throwing off. The British Nationality Act, which we have enacted also, provides how a man can throw off his quality of British subject. This Act does not touch that in the slightest. A man would lose his Canadian nationality when he threw off his quality of British subject, but his merely throwing off his quality of Canadian national does not affect his quality of British subject at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What will he be? He is not a native of Canada; he is not a native of any other country. What on earth is he?


William Stevens Fielding: Nothing at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Let us take a very
simple case. A man was born in England of a father who was a Canadian national. That man would be a British subject and a Canadian national. He would have two qualities. By-and-by he thinks he would rather be a national or resortissant of the United Kingdom. He says: "I want to renounce my Canadian nationality," and that is all he renounces; he remains just the same British subject he was before. It will depend upon what the laws of the different portions of the Empire are whether or not he becomes a national of one of those countries. It is not essential that he should be a national of any thing at all when he is living in any part of the Empire which does not deem it necessary to define its nationalism. He may be in the unfortunate situation of being a national of nothing in particular; but he will always be a British subject, and under those circumstances, I presume he would be a national of the United Kingdom.


William Stevens Fielding: And yet a man born
in the United States of a father who was a British subject, would be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a Canadian national?


Charles Joseph Doherty: And a British subject.


William Stevens Fielding: By reason of this Bill only.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He would be a British subject without this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: This Bill makes him a British subject.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It makes him a Canadian national. But before a man can be a Canadian national, he has to be a British subject. Supposing this Bill was never passed, a man born in the United States of a father who is a British subject is both an American citizen and a British subject. I know this sounds anomalous, and there is a provision in the British Nationality Act to enable a man, just as we provide here for throwing off the mere national, to throw off the quality of British subject where a man, under those circumstances by reason of his father being a British subject, is a British subject. Under that provision-I have not the text of it-that man may make a declaration of alienage and cease to be a British subject, or he may refrain from making that declaration and continue to be a British subject. There are in the world any number of people who are in the

anomalous position of being subjects of two countries.


Lucien Cannon: Will this Bill, from an
international viewpoint, receive any application so far as Canada is concerned, outside of our territory?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No law has any application outside of the territory of the country that made it, but I think I am safe in saying that it is the universal international custom to accept a country's own definition of who its citizens or subjects are unless some other country disputes it. If somebody gets disputing over some of our most distinguished citizens, I can readily comprehend we may have serious disputes between different parts of this Empire as to who is entitled to claim some of the distinguished gentlemen I see in front of me. If such dispute should arise, I would not contend that our law should govern anywhere outside of Canada, any more than a British law saying that a man is a British subject governs anywhere outside of the British realms. Such laws have to depend upon international comity for any recognition outside. It would be just as absurd for me to say that this law will govern outside of Canada as to our nationality, as it would be for the British Prime Minister to say that when the Parliament of Great Britain passes a law, defining a British subject, that makes people in France say: That man is a British subject. People in France say so on account of international comity, but they are not bound to do so; they might legislate and say: That man is a French citizen, and that is the law of France.


Lucien Cannon: As I understand my right hon. friend, the question is not one of law, but of courtesy, and this law is passed so as to secure representation by a Canadian national at future meetings of the League. Those meetings are held generally outside of Canada, so that the law would never apply except through courtesy.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am sorry, but I cannot make for Canadians a position that does not belong to anybody in the wide world. When a British man, say Mr. Balfour-nobody will doubt his identity as a British subject and statesman-arrives at the Assembly in France and says: "I am a British subject," there is no law to entitle him to recognition as such; it is not because the law of Great Britain says he is a British subject that in France he is a British subject. He is a British subject

in France because France recognizes the fact. But if France chose to legislate and say that everybody born in England should be a French citizen, every one of those men, the moment he stepped into France, would be a French citizen. No country in the world can legislate to make a man its citizen outside of its borders, because no country's laws govern outside of its limits; but it is the universal practice of countries to define who are their citizens, and it is the usual practice of civilized countries to accept each country's definition of who is its citizen, until some other country puts in a claim to such people and then you may have a dispute.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They may enforce their right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. We may pass laws until we are blue in the face; but we cannot prevent outside countries from passing laws contrary to ours, and we can never make our laws govern in a foreign country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Friday. Ma,rch 11, 1921